ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Modern Slavery

Pauline Latham: What steps she is taking to end modern slavery.

Theresa May: This Government are determined to stamp out the abhorrent crime of modern slavery. The Modern Slavery Bill will give law enforcement agencies the tools to tackle modern slavery, and enhance support and protection for victims. We will shortly publish our modern slavery strategy setting out wider work to tackle these terrible crimes. I was pleased to announce on Thursday the appointment of Kevin Hyland as designate independent anti-slavery commissioner.

Pauline Latham: Does my right hon. Friend share my belief that Government alone cannot end modern slavery and we also need businesses to take a lead and play their part in this? What steps has she taken to achieve that?

Theresa May: I absolutely agree that dealing with this crime is about more than action by Government. That is why I am pleased that we have introduced into the Modern Slavery Bill a clause that requires larger businesses to show what they are doing to ensure that slavery is not taking place in their supply chains. We must all work together on this issue. I am pleased that we have been able to introduce that amendment, and I am sure that it will be supported throughout this House.

Fiona Mactaggart: The national referral mechanism, which is one of the ways of identifying victims, is flawed—as, indeed, the Home Secretary’s recent report implies. What is she going to do to make sure that victims, whatever their immigration status, are identified and effectively protected?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady is right. Concerns about the national referral mechanism have been raised for some time. That is why the Government had a review of the NRM undertaken. That review has now been published, and we will set out our response to it in the modern slavery strategy that will, as I said, soon be published by the Government. We recognise the issues that have been raised in the review of the NRM, and I am pleased that it has taken place. We will of course put support for victims at the heart of what we are doing.

Caroline Nokes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Kevin Hyland on his appointment as anti-slavery commissioner designate and expand a little on how his role will help to stamp out this dreadful crime?

Theresa May: I am pleased to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Kevin Hyland on his appointment. Many people in this House who have been involved in looking at the issues around human trafficking and modern slavery will know of the very good work that he did as a detective chief inspector in the Metropolitan police, particularly on human trafficking matters. As the anti-slavery commissioner, he will be able to ensure that the agencies, particularly law enforcement agencies, are doing
	what they need to be able to do tackle this crime. As right hon. and hon. Members may have seen, he has already said publicly that one of his concerns about identifying this crime is ensuring that when victims of trafficking and slavery come forward, the police are able to recognise that they have been victims.

Frank Field: As the Government have been so open in getting outside views, as well as views from this place, in building up their Bill, might not the Home Secretary adopt the same strategy with the implementation of the Bill that she has promised us in December? Would it not be possible to make that a Green Paper and for her then to come forward with her final proposals when, I hope, she secures Royal Assent in February next year?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman has given considerable time and effort to this issue. We are grateful for the work that he has done with the Government in challenging us on the Bill and on the measures we are undertaking. The strategy has been developed with outside input; the Government have not just developed it themselves. I am sure that when the strategy is published, and as it is implemented, he will be very willing to come forward and provide views to the Government on it.

Crime Levels

David Rutley: What assessment she has made of recent trends in the level of crime.

Stephen Mosley: What assessment she has made of recent trends in the level of crime.

Theresa May: Police reform is working. Crime is down by more than a fifth under this Government, according to the independent crime survey for England and Wales. England and Wales are safer than they have been for decades, with the survey showing crime at its lowest levels since the survey began in 1981.

David Rutley: I would like to acknowledge the important role and hard work of the Cheshire constabulary in reducing crime in Cheshire by 17% since 2010. I also acknowledge the important role of the reforms in policing that this Government have taken through, with a more targeted approach to measures, stronger accountability, and a greater emphasis on innovation. What further steps are this Government taking to improve the effectiveness of policing in the fight against crime?

Theresa May: I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the officers and staff of the Cheshire constabulary on the very good work they have done in helping to ensure that crime in that county has fallen by the percentage that he mentioned. We continue to work on driving out crime and on helping the police to be able to deal with crime. The College of Policing is further professionalising the police. The police innovation fund is genuinely looking for ways in which police forces can be provided with funding for innovative ideas to find new ways of dealing with crime and ensuring that we are able to drive crime down even further.

Stephen Mosley: This Friday the Cheshire police commissioner John Dwyer and I will hold a meeting with members of the Chester Asian community who are concerned about a recent spate of burglaries aimed at Asian families by people looking for gold and jewellery. What advice would my right hon. Friend give to people who are concerned about this spate of crime?

Theresa May: I congratulate my hon. Friend on arranging that meeting to look at a particular problem that affects the Asian community. There are, of course, other communities that are also particularly affected by gold theft. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the crime prevention panel, which we have set up at the Home Office and which is looking at further ways to prevent crime from happening, is looking at that very issue. It is looking in particular at issues relating to the safe storage of gold and other similar valuable items in homes and external locations, and it hopes to be able to report on the matter in the new year.

Frank Roy: Online child abuse is a horrendous and growing problem. Does the Home Secretary agree that those guilty of online child abuse should be barred from working with children?

Theresa May: I absolutely agree that all child abuse is a particularly abhorrent crime and, obviously, that which takes place online is no less abhorrent than that which takes place offline. That is why the Government have put a particular emphasis on dealing with online child abuse. A number of steps have been taken by the Government, led by the Prime Minister. I am pleased to say that next month the Prime Minister will also lead an international conference on online child sexual exploitation, endeavouring to further increase our ability to deal with these issues.

David Hanson: Given the importance of the European arrest warrant in bringing people to justice and reducing crime, will the Home Secretary explain to the House why today’s motion in the House of Lords gives peers a chance to vote on and specifically endorse the European arrest warrant, when last week, as you will recall, Mr Speaker, MPs were denied such an opportunity?

Theresa May: I was very clear about that. In fact, we spent a considerable amount of time last Monday discussing the Government’s motion. We were very clear that that motion would be binding on the Government in relation to the package of 35 measures. The regulations are now being discussed by the House of Lords. Sadly, of course, this House did not have a full opportunity to debate those matters last week, because the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), chose to move a closure motion to stop debate.

Michael Ellis: Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating the Northamptonshire police, including not only Chief Constable Adrian Lee and Deputy Chief Constable Martin Jelley, but particularly officers of all ranks, on the fact that the crime rate in Northamptonshire is down 21% since June 2010?

Theresa May: I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating not just the chief constable and his deputy, but officers of all ranks in the Northamptonshire constabulary on the work they have been doing to bring down crime to the extent of 21% over the past four and a half years. That is excellent news for members of the public. Once again, I congratulate the officers on the hard work they have done that has led to that fall in crime.

Andrew Gwynne: The Home Secretary will be aware that the National Crime Agency has the details of between 20,000 and 30,000 people who have accessed child abuse images online. There have been 600 arrests. What action is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that the many other thousands of perpetrators of this vile crime are brought to justice?

Theresa May: I am pleased to say that the National Crime Agency has enhanced the ability of police in this country to deal with these particularly abhorrent crimes. By bringing the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre under the NCA, it is now able to have access to the tasking powers of all police forces and to the national cyber crime unit and other functions within the NCA. The NCA is very clear that it is looking at all the evidence brought before it. I am pleased that it has already made the number of arrests that the hon. Gentleman has referred to and, as I have said, it will look at the evidence brought before it and take action appropriately.

Student Immigration

Mark Lazarowicz: When she next plans to meet the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to discuss student immigration.

James Brokenshire: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary meets colleagues regularly for discussions on a range of issues, including on how we can continue to attract the brightest and the best to the UK while bearing down on abuse.

Mark Lazarowicz: The Government’s arbitrary immigration target has clearly been shown to be both unworkable and misguided. A particularly misguided aspect is the decision to include international students in the target. There is now consensus—from the Labour party, political parties across the House and even Government Members, as well as from universities, trade unions and business—that the target should not include international students. Will the Home Secretary and the Minister join that consensus?

James Brokenshire: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no, we will not, because students continue to use public services. If we look at the Office for National Statistics data for the 12 months to September 2013, we see that 50,000 non-EU students left, whereas 124,000 entered the country, which suggests that students have an impact on net migration.
	I say to the hon. Gentleman and the sector generally that there is no cap on the number of legitimate students who can come to study within the UK. Indeed, we have
	seen significant increases from a number of countries, including China, Brazil and Malaysia. The UK very much remains open to business for students.

Julian Huppert: The Minister spoke at the Home Affairs Committee seminar on international students, but at the sessions in which he did not speak, there was heavy criticism of his policies. Indeed, the director general of the Institute of Directors, Simon Walker, said:
	“When some politician in the House of Commons thinks it would be wonderful to say something [detrimental] about international students, or some clever minister thinks of sending out a van to hound immigrants, they don’t think what it would look like in international papers.”
	Will the Minister listen to the voices of the Institute of Directors, universities and the business sector, and look again at such policies?

James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have heard from reports of that particular session in the conference hosted by the Home Affairs Committee that I made it very clear that we approach this issue in a measured fashion. The number of visa applications for our universities has gone up 5% this year, with an 8% increase for Russell Group universities. I very clearly say to the sector that trying to talk down the offer we have is not in the best interests of the sector or of our country. I certainly look forward to continuing to work with the sector to ensure that we attract students to our world-class institutions.

Police Morale

Mary Glindon: What steps she is taking to reduce sickness and stress leave and raise morale in the police service.

Michael Penning: The Home Office does not hold figures centrally on the number of police who go on sick leave with stress. We have a world-class police force, and the best way to get up police force morale is to support our police, and to say that they do a fantastic job and that we have the best police force in the world.

Mary Glindon: In a recent survey on officers’ morale, the Police Federation found that nearly 5,000 officers are planning to leave the service within the next five years because of pay cuts and cuts in conditions. Another survey by Unison says that 75% of police staff feel increasingly stressed. Will the Minister heed the unions’ call to review the gap between rising demand for services and cutbacks to the workforce?

Michael Penning: As a trade unionist, I always listen to trade unions, but they are not always right. We will make sure that we listen very carefully. I have seen the figures for the slight increase in stress-related illness. We have committed £8 million to blue light services to try to help with stress and well-being. The best way to ensure that morale goes up in our police forces is for everybody in this House to support them and say what a fantastic job they do.

Mark Pawsey: Does the Minister agree that one of the key contributors to morale in any job is the satisfaction of doing a good job? On that basis, will
	he join me in praising Warwickshire police? Over the past year, there have been 1,185 fewer victims of crime than in the previous year.

Michael Penning: I do congratulate Warwickshire police on the 15% cut in crime since 2010. They are doing a fantastic job, and I hope to visit them soon.

Jack Dromey: The Home Affairs Committee found that morale had sunk to its lowest ebb in recent memory. Surveys have demonstrated that 5,000 police officers want to leave the police service because of low morale. Figures have shown a staggering 63% increase in duty days lost to sickness owing to anxiety, while the sickness figures more generally are soaring. Does the Home Secretary accept that, with her demanding ever more out of a police service that she has cut by 16,000, she is making police officers sick?

Michael Penning: I get on very well with the shadow Minister, but what he has just said is appalling. He is running down the police force and the fantastic job they are doing. With less officers on the front line and less officers in the back-room staff, they are doing a fantastic job. He should be ashamed of himself, and he should praise the police.

Deportations

Richard Graham: What recent steps she has taken to speed up the process of deportation.

Andrew Bridgen: What recent steps she has taken to speed up the process of deportation.

James Brokenshire: Changes to the appeals and removals system introduced under the Immigration Act 2014 have reduced the number of immigration decisions that can be appealed from 17 to four. New appeal provisions now allow us to deport harmful individuals before their appeals are heard if there is no risk of serious, irreversible harm. We have also introduced new powers to stop foreign criminals using family life arguments to delay their deportation.

Richard Graham: I am encouraged by what the Minister has said, and I appreciate all that he and the Home Office are doing to deport criminals—including EU nationals—who are guilty of serious crimes. He will know of the case of Mr Peter Pavlisin, a Slovakian national who brutally attacked his pregnant Gloucester girlfriend in January 2013 and was sentenced. Will he update me on when a decision on Mr Pavlisin’s deportation will be made?

James Brokenshire: I cannot comment on the specifics of my hon. Friend’s case, but I can underline the Government’s commitment to removing foreign national offenders from this country—just under 5,100 were removed last year. There is a cross-Government approach to ensure that we do all we can to redocument and remove foreign national offenders and, with the changes
	in the Immigration Act 2014 that I underlined, we have changed the law to ensure that we speed up those deportations.

Andrew Bridgen: My constituents are rightly concerned about the £800 million annual cost to the taxpayer of housing more than 12,000 foreign offenders in UK jails. Will my hon. Friend outline what steps can be taken to reduce that cost, while still ensuring that justice is served?

James Brokenshire: I can certainly underline the steps that we are taking to speed up the process. Moving offenders straight from prison to deportation is saving the taxpayer £27.5 million, and Operation Nexus ensures that police officers work alongside immigration enforcement officers to ensure that the information needed to aid deportation later in the process is provided. We are taking an end-to-end approach.

Seema Malhotra: Recently, the Australian Government decided to deport an individual following serious concerns about the impact of his views on the safety of women. To prevent us from having to deport individuals as the Australians did, and given that his seminars promote choking and sexual assaults in order to seduce women, will the Home Secretary consider using her powers to exclude Julien Blanc from the UK if, like me, she assesses that his presence is not conducive to the public good?

James Brokenshire: The Government firmly underline their commitment to promoting the role of women within government, business and the whole country, and they condemn any action that might stand against that. The hon. Lady has alluded to a case highlighted in the press. I cannot comment on the specifics of that particular case, but I can assure her about the steps this Government are taking, and about the record of this Home Secretary in excluding more people on grounds of unacceptable behaviour than any of her predecessors.

Vehicle Scanning Machines

Stephen Barclay: How many vehicle scanning machines to identify stowaways at UK ports of entry the Government plan to buy in the next 12 months.

James Brokenshire: Border Force operates an array of search techniques as part of its multi-layered search regime, including detection dogs, carbon dioxide monitors, heartbeat detectors and scanners. In the past 12 months nearly £10 million has been invested to support and increase those methods of detection and bolster port security in the UK and at juxtaposed controls. The Government have also committed to invest £12 million at the port of Calais further to enhance security.

Stephen Barclay: May I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that written parliamentary question 213850 on the number of lorries screened by body scanning machines and sniffer dogs when they enter the UK has not been answered? The Government have confirmed
	that currently just five vehicle scanning machines cover all our ports, including 51 points of entry. Will the Minister clarify why five is an adequate number?

James Brokenshire: Border Force uses an array of different techniques to secure our border which, as I have highlighted, include body detection dogs, carbon dioxide detectors, heartbeat monitors and scanners, as well as physical searches. I will look into the outstanding parliamentary question highlighted by my hon. Friend. Last year 18,000 people were detected at our juxtaposed controls—a 60% increase. That underlines the focus of our Border Force officers on preventing people who should not be here from coming to this country.

Keith Vaz: The Minister is right: those pieces of equipment are useful, but they are not 100% effective. As of today, 2,300 illegal migrants are in Calais, seeking to come to the United Kingdom. According to the mayor of Calais, in her evidence to Parliament on 28 October, some will risk their lives to do so. Does the Minister agree that we need to do much more work with the countries at the point of entry—Greece, Turkey and Italy—to prevent people from going there, rather than waiting until they get to Calais when it could be far too late?

James Brokenshire: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in that we need to look beyond the borders of the EU. That is precisely the emphasis that has been given by several countries, including the UK and France. Indeed, Italy is hosting a conference in a few weeks to do precisely that in relation to the horn of Africa. He is right to make that point, but equally the Government are focused on security at Calais, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has agreed with the French Government an investment of £12 million in security at that port.

Online Child Abuse

Bill Esterson: What recent progress the National Crime Agency has made in tackling online child abuse.

Karen Bradley: In its first full year, National Crime Agency activity has safeguarded or protected more than 1,000 children. As part of its response, the NCA is leading an unprecedented UK-wide operation called Notarise, which is identifying and taking action against individuals who view indecent images of children. To date, Operation Notarise alone has led to more than 700 arrests.

Bill Esterson: The head of the National Crime Agency made the link between online and physical child abuse. I am sure the Minister will agree that it is vital that we protect the most vulnerable children as part of stopping child abuse. What are the Government doing about the Education Committee’s findings in its inquiry into residential care, which found children’s homes in the same places as many abusers and potential abusers?

Karen Bradley: What is illegal offline is illegal online. It does not matter how the abuse takes place, it is still illegal activity and victims need our support and protection.
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary leads the cross-government response to this issue and we are working hard to make sure we give victims the support they need and deserve.

Maria Miller: As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned earlier, the Prime Minister will lead an international conference on reducing and eradicating online child abuse. Will the Minister update the House on the measures that the Government are taking so that perpetrators of this appalling crime are brought to justice no matter where they live in the world?

Karen Bradley: My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the global response being led by the Government and the Prime Minister to make sure that we are doing everything we can to work globally with international partners and the private sector. We are taking steps, particularly in the Serious Crime Bill, to ensure that we are doing all we can to give the support and protection that is needed through law enforcement.

Duncan Hames: What representations has the Home Secretary received from the Mayor of London or the Metropolitan police about the implications of ongoing investigations into organised child sexual abuse to ensure that he can adequately resource these exceptional police operations?

Karen Bradley: The national policing lead on this matter is involved in making sure that the resources are available. Funding is also available to police forces from the Home Office to give specific support if additional resources are required to tackle child abuse.

Drug Misuse

Laurence Robertson: What her policy is on the continued prohibition of recreational drugs.

Greg Mulholland: If she will undertake an assessment of the effects of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Lynne Featherstone: The Government’s drugs strategy sets out a balanced approach to tackling drug misuse, including controls under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. There are positive signs that our approach is working, such as a long-term downward trend in drug use, and people going into treatment are more likely to free themselves from dependency than ever before. An assessment of the drugs strategy is under way.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for that response and I certainly encourage her in that work, but does she agree that any attempt to decriminalise drugs would send completely the wrong message from this place to young people?

Lynne Featherstone: The coalition Government have no current intention to decriminalise drugs. Drugs are illegal where scientific and medical analysis has shown they are harmful to human health. We recognise that drugs are a complex and evolving issue, so we continue
	to develop our strategy and look at other evidence-based approaches to help us to respond to emerging threats and challenges.

Greg Mulholland: I am delighted to see my hon. Friend join the ministerial team. She is aware of the unanimous vote a few weeks ago for an impact assessment and cost-benefit analysis on this matter, but does she agree that to be tough on drugs we need to focus more police time on chasing drug dealers?

Lynne Featherstone: I could not agree more. Our focus absolutely has to be on those who deal, smuggle and do the most harm. That is where police time needs to be spent.

Dan Jarvis: I was pleased with the Minister’s confirmation, in a response to a recent parliamentary question, that the Government have accepted a recommendation to develop proposals for a blanket ban on the sale of new psychoactive substances—so-called legal highs. What work will now take place to ensure that that is a reality?

Lynne Featherstone: As the hon. Gentleman says, we accepted the panel’s recommendation to develop proposals for a blanket ban. We have already initiated statutory consultation on the proposals with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and we will consider its advice carefully. Work has begun and is moving swiftly. We will develop proposals for a blanket ban and set out further detail in due course.

Syrian Refugees

Heidi Alexander: How many Syrian refugees have been resettled in the UK under the Government’s vulnerable persons relocation scheme.

James Brokenshire: We remain on track to relocate several hundred people under the vulnerable persons relocation scheme in the next three years. Between the first group of arrivals on 25 March and the end of June, 50 people were relocated to the UK under the scheme. Numbers are released as part of the publication each quarter of the Home Office official statistics, and the increased number of arrivals under the scheme up to the end of September will be published on 27 November.

Heidi Alexander: On 9 December, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is staging a Syrian resettlement conference in Geneva. Given the unprecedented magnitude of the Syrian refugee crisis, will the Minister ensure that the UK Government are represented at that conference? Will he also take the opportunity to commit to expanding the vulnerable persons relocation scheme?

James Brokenshire: We certainly recognise the contribution and role played by the UNHCR. Indeed, the vulnerable persons relocation scheme has been developed alongside UNHCR and the specific cases we accept depend on referral by it. I underline to the hon. Lady the contribution the UK has made to the region: £700 million in aid, the vulnerable persons relocation scheme and the asylum claims we are accepting here.

Sarah Teather: In the past few months there has been increasing evidence that the countries surrounding Syria have begun to close their borders to reduce the number of refugees they allow through, leaving many in a desperate situation. I join the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) in urging the Government to step up to the plate at the pledging conference because we have no ability to put diplomatic pressure on other countries if we are doing so pitifully ourselves.

James Brokenshire: The contribution of the UK stands up to scrutiny and our overall contribution bears comparison with any international country. We are providing £700 million in aid, which is assisting hundreds of thousands of people each month. The vulnerable persons relocation scheme deals with the most vulnerable individuals, and I underline the fact that we have granted asylum to 3,000 people from Syria since the start of the conflict.

Stephen Doughty: I welcome what the Minister says on Syrian refugees coming in this direction, but will he comment on British citizens travelling in the opposite direction? He may be aware of a story in today’s Daily Mail regarding allegations that British citizens have been involved in barbaric and brutal beheadings in Syria and Iraq. Will he assure me that those claims will be investigated very urgently, including claims that an individual from Cardiff was involved? Will he join me in welcoming the absolute condemnation of those acts by the Muslim community across Cardiff?

James Brokenshire: I am sure that the whole House would join the hon. Gentleman and me in utterly condemning those responsible for the brutal murder of Peter Kassig and the appalling images we saw over the weekend. The Government remain resolute in confronting terrorism in all its forms and pursuing those responsible for heinous terrorist acts, and I endorse his comments about British Muslim communities across the country standing up against this brutality and heinous evil. We stand together in condemning these actions and taking whatever action is appropriate.

Margot James: The UNHCR report published in July called for participating states to plan for the resettlement of more vulnerable refugees from Syria in 2015 and 2016. Given that this tragic conflict shows little sign of abating, will my hon. Friend indicate what responsibilities we have regarding such forward planning?

James Brokenshire: As my hon. Friend will know, we have stated clearly that we intend to accept several hundred people under the vulnerable persons relocation scheme over the next three years, and we are doing exactly that and will be following through on it, but clearly we remain focused on getting a solution in-region, given the significant numbers affected, which is why our aid programme—the £700 million and the assistance it is directly providing—matters so much.

Female Genital Mutilation

Karl Turner: What steps the Government are taking to identify and safeguard girls at risk of female genital mutilation.

Lynne Featherstone: Female genital mutilation is an extremely harmful practice that we are committed to tackling. On 22 July, the Prime Minister hosted the UK’s first girls summit, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to tackling FGM here and overseas. At the summit, the UK announced an unprecedented package of measures to tackle FGM, including several commitments to strengthen the law, improve the law enforcement response, support front-line professionals and work with communities to prevent abuse.

Karl Turner: I thank the Minister and the Home Secretary for their work to tackle FGM, and I welcome the introduction of protection orders, but may I ask whether legal aid will be available in civil proceedings where people seek protection through the courts?

Lynne Featherstone: We are currently looking at that. Of course, legal aid is available for domestic violence, but we are looking at it specifically in relation to FGM.

Barry Sheerman: I want to push the Minister and set this point in a broader context. There are worrying minorities in this country that do not believe in equal rights for women—it is not just FGM, but a number of other awful things that happen to women. Is it not time that women in this country, especially new immigrants, knew their rights and protections under the law?

Lynne Featherstone: I could not agree more, and that is why we are working closely across government and in communities to push this information down into those communities. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, some of these communities are particularly closed off, which makes it even more imperative to work with their members to take these messages in, including in schools and through front-line professionals.

Deportations

William Bain: How many foreign criminals have been deported from the UK in the last 12 months.

James Brokenshire: Last year, we removed just under 5,100 foreign national offenders—a 12% increase over the last two years—and since 2010 the Government have removed more than 22,000 foreign national offenders, despite a 28% increase over that period in the number of legal challenges and appeals designed to frustrate or delay removal.

William Bain: The Minister did not mention that the number of deportations of criminals has fallen by 7% since 2010. The recent National Audit Office report suggested that 40% of the delays were down to avoidable processing errors. Will he explain why the Home Office is so inefficient?

James Brokenshire: I do not think the hon. Gentleman was listening. Since 2010, we have seen a 28% increase in the number of legal challenges to deportation decisions designed to frustrate or delay the removal of foreign national offenders, and that is why we introduced the
	Immigration Act 2014 and other changes to speed up the deportation process. This Government are focused on this issue, unlike the previous one, who failed so miserably in office.

Madeleine Moon: What responsibility does the Home Office accept for its failure in the pre-vetting and walking-out process for the Libyan personnel who unleashed a tidal wave of criminal offences across the UK and then had to be deported from this country?

James Brokenshire: I think the hon. Lady is referring to the Libyan soldiers who are receiving training in Cambridgeshire. Clearly, action was taken in those circumstances and they were removed. Clearly, unacceptable offences took place, which have been investigated and the appropriate steps have been taken.

Crime Levels

Philip Hollobone: What changes there have been in levels of crime in (a) Kettering, (b) Northamptonshire and (c) England since May 2010.

Lynne Featherstone: Police reform is working and crime is down by more than a fifth under this Government, according to the independent crime survey for England and Wales. Since June 2010, the number of crimes recorded by the police has fallen by 12% in Kettering, by 21% in Northamptonshire and by 16% in England.

Philip Hollobone: I declare my interest as a special constable. How is the fantastically good work being done by Northamptonshire police being fed into the crime and policing knowledge hub within the Home Office so that Northamptonshire’s best practice can be spread throughout the country?

Lynne Featherstone: I congratulate my hon. Friend on being a special constable for the British Transport police. The information is being fed in through the College of Policing, and I am grateful to him for praising the crime and policing knowledge hub in the Home Office, which is developing a deep understanding of the various drivers of crime.

Mr Speaker: Parliamentary colleagues can walk along the streets of Northamptonshire safer and more emboldened in the knowledge of the deployment of the hon. Gentleman’s talents.

Lilian Greenwood: Last week I met members of Nottingham’s Jewish community, which expressed deep concern about the dramatic increase in anti-Semitic abuse to which Members and others have been subjected on social media platforms, including Facebook and Twitter. I am sure that these concerns are shared across the east midlands, including in Kettering and Northamptonshire. I understand that when the police put in RIPA requests to Twitter, they are sent via America and it sometimes takes so long that potential investigations are hampered. What is the Minister doing to ensure that companies such as Twitter and Facebook fulfil their responsibilities under British law?

Lynne Featherstone: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. All anti-Semitic acts are absolutely deplorable. I can assure her that in the last two weeks, the Home Secretary met the Community Security Trust and the Board of British Deputies.

Peter Bone: It is quite extraordinary that crime has fallen by more than a fifth in Northamptonshire since this Government came to power. Could it be because under this Government, the proportion of police officers out on the streets catching criminals and deterring crime in Northamptonshire has gone up?

Lynne Featherstone: Yes.

Steve Reed: The Government risk sounding very complacent about areas of crime that are still getting worse. Can the Minister explain the Government’s lack of action on violent assaults, which are up by 20% in London over the last year, and online banking fraud, which has soared by 70% nationally?

Lynne Featherstone: The national crime agency for banking fraud has been set up and people are, of course, coming forward to report crime when they previously did not.

Police and Crime Commissioner By-elections

Stephen McCabe: What assessment she has made of recent turnout in the police and crime commissioners by-elections.

Michael Penning: In the west midlands, 200,000 people voted in the by-election for the PCC and in South Yorkshire it was 150,000. None of those would have had a vote if we had carried on with the old unaccountable police authorities—not one.

Stephen McCabe: I understand that the rather low turnout for this quite unpopular experiment in policing has cost the taxpayer in excess of £5.3 million. Is that what the Government mean by “value for money”?

Michael Penning: I am very surprised by an Opposition and a Labour party that have PCCs out there such as Vera Baird—[Interruption.] Is the hon. Gentleman decrying the work that Vera Baird does? That is interesting—we have a Labour party that decries its own PCCs.

David Nuttall: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that turnout in elections for PCCs might improve if we went back to using the tried and tested first-past-the-post method?

Michael Penning: We are thinking carefully about the two by-elections and about what methodology would help to increase turnout, but if Labour Members keep running them down, it is no surprise that police and crime commissioners in their own areas—and the shadow Minister told me that they were doing a fantastic job—[Interruption.] Members can try and shout me down, but, at the end of the day, they will not succeed.

Police Budgets

Roberta Blackman-Woods: What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on changes to police budgets in the next comprehensive spending review.

Michael Penning: The Home Secretary and the Chancellor meet regularly to discuss budget matters. No decisions have been made about police budgets after March 2016.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Does the Minister agree that many forces, including Durham police, will be unable to cope with large budget cuts—especially at a time when they must manage an historic level of demand as well as dealing with increasing challenges such as child exploitation and cybercrime—without cutting police numbers, which our police and crime commissioner, Ron Hogg, says is absolutely inevitable?

Michael Penning: No, I do not accept that. What I do accept is that where cuts have taken place, crime has fallen. Let us consider the area that the hon. Lady represents. I quote:
	“Despite these difficult times, I am very proud to report that County Durham and Darlington remain among the safest places in the country to live…This performance puts us in an excellent starting position for the period of continued austerity.”
	I believe that is from County Durham’s Labour police and crime commissioner, Ron Hogg.

Topical Questions

Heidi Alexander: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Theresa May: Over the weekend we saw yet another brutal murder at the hands of ISIL, that of United States aid worker Peter Kassig. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and the Minister for Security and Immigration, referred to it earlier. I am sure the House will agree that, along with the recent shocking attack on the Canadian Parliament, it demonstrates the deadly threat that we face from terrorism at home and abroad. That is why protecting the British public remains the Government’s No. 1 priority, and why we are taking urgent action to ensure that our police and intelligence agencies have all the tools that they need to keep people safe.
	As I have told the House previously, and as the Prime Minister confirmed in Australia last week, we will shortly introduce a counter-terrorism Bill which will include new powers to disrupt people’s ability to travel abroad to fight as well as their ability to return here, and will combat the underlying ideology that feeds, supports and sanctions terrorism. The legislation will strengthen our armoury of powers, which will be among the toughest in the world in terms of cracking down on returning foreign fighters.

Heidi Alexander: May I associate myself with the Home Secretary’s comments about recent international events?
	The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children recently launched its “flaw in the law” campaign, which rightly demands legislative change to make it illegal for an adult to send a sexual message to a child. When will the Home Secretary give the police the power to intervene earlier, rather than leaving them unable to act until a child has been coerced into sharing an indecent image, lured to a meeting offline or, in the worst cases, sexually abused?

Theresa May: I agree that we need to be able to intervene earlier, so that we can ensure that predatory behaviour is tackled before children are put at risk. Officials had a further meeting with the NSPCC as recently as last Friday to discuss the matter further. I can assure the hon. Lady and the House that we will complete our consideration of the issue as a matter of urgency, so that we have the opportunity to table an amendment to the Serious Crime Bill should we wish to do so.

Sarah Teather: As the Minister will know, over the last few months I have been chairing an inquiry in which a cross-party group of Members of Parliament has been investigating immigration detention and the treatment of detainees. We have heard some very disturbing evidence from detainees themselves about the impact on their mental health, and also from representatives of the Royal College of Psychiatry and the British Medical Association. The panel would like an opportunity to discuss the Minister’s written evidence with him in person. May I encourage him to come and give evidence to our inquiry? We should be very happy to work around all manner of difficulties in his diary.

James Brokenshire: I welcome the work of the all-party parliamentary group. Let me emphasise that our priority is to ensure that detention is as short and possible, as well as being safe and secure. Obviously we have made changes in relation to the process for mental health provision, in which Public Health England has been involved, but I will certainly continue to reflect on the recommendations that the inquiry makes.

Ian Austin: Magistrates in Dudley tell me that as a result of the reduction in the number of police officers people accused of quite serious crimes such as burglary, assault, domestic violence and even rape are no longer being taken to court in the black country. The number of cases taken to court by the police is down by a third. Why do the Government not understand that my constituents want to see police on the streets, offenders in court and criminals in jail?

Michael Penning: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that there are now more police on the streets, not in back rooms. In my Ministry of Justice role, we have looked very carefully at cautions, which we feel were being used inappropriately. There are now pilots, and there will be a deferred prosecution, and if people do not abide by that, they will be in court. It is for the Crown Prosecution Service, not politicians, to decide who goes to court and who does not.

Andrew Bridgen: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Leicestershire police on signing up to the “best use of stop-and-search” scheme, to use stop-and-search less and more fairly, saving police time and further increasing the trust between the police and the community they serve so well?

Theresa May: I am pleased to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Leicestershire police on signing up to the “best use of stop-and-search” scheme. I am very clear that the police should be using stop-and-search powers lawfully in a targeted, intelligence-led way. We want to ensure that local communities can hold their force to account for its use of the powers, and the scheme is part of a package of reform that will contribute to a significant reduction in the overall use of stop-and-search, but also the better use of stop-and-search and improved stop-to-arrest ratios. I also congratulate Leicestershire police on the fact that over the last four years crime has fallen by 22% in their force area.

Yvette Cooper: May I join the Home Secretary in passing on the thoughts and prayers of those on the Opposition Benches to the family and friends of US aid worker Abdul-Rahman Kassig, murdered in an act of vile barbarism by ISIL?
	This morning, we learned that a British terror suspect has left Britain, reportedly to join ISIL. He was previously on a terrorism prevention and investigation measure which, under the Home Secretary’s reforms, ran out in January. We understand she had already taken his passport away. She has told us that
	“there has been no substantial increase in overall risk since the introduction of TPIMs”.—[Official Report, 4 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 25.]
	She told us, too, that when TPIMs ran out either people were no longer at risk or there would be sufficient surveillance and restrictions by the police and Security Service to manage the risk. How come that has completely failed in this case?

Theresa May: Of course, this country is now facing a more severe threat than it has in recent years. That was reflected in the fact that back in August the joint terrorism analysis centre raised the threat level from substantial to severe. That reflected concerns about western attack plans that were being put together in Syria and elsewhere. As the right hon. Lady knows—I referred to this in my answer to the first topical question—the Government are looking at further legislation that is needed and we will be publishing a counter-terrorism Bill so we can take this through this House. I look forward to her supporting the Government in taking further measures to ensure that we can deal with terrorists.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary did not answer the question about what has happened to this man who has left the country to fight with our enemies, and I think Parliament has a right to know whether her change to the legislation made that possible. She talked about there being a more serious threat, but it is significant that there are hardly any TPIMs in use, raising serious questions about whether they are fit for purpose at the moment. Two terror suspects have absconded—one in a black cab and one in a burqa—because the Home
	Secretary removed the relocation powers and now another has absconded because there were not sufficient checks in place once the TPIM ran out. So will she agree as part of that legislation to reverse the Government’s position on the two main changes she made—first, to restore relocation powers and, secondly, to provide additional controls where needed once TPIMs run out, before any more terror suspects are able to run away?

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady will know that both I and the Prime Minister have made it clear that in the new counter-terrorism Bill we propose to bring forward the Government will be looking at the issue of TPIMs and looking to see whether any further measures are necessary. A number of proposals in relation to TPIMs have been made by the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, David Anderson, and the Government are looking at the package of proposals he has put forward.

Matthew Offord: What scientific and medical issues is the Department considering in relation to the introduction of water cannon in England and Wales, and what is the time frame for a decision on their introduction?

Michael Penning: The Home Secretary will look carefully before she makes any decision on whether water cannon can be deployed. We received a formal application from the lead officer on this only in March 2014, but once we have looked at all the appraisals relating to the need for water cannon, the Home Secretary will make a decision.

Paul Flynn: Can we do something practical about prosecuting cases of female genital mutilation? Many such cases have been taken to court in France, but we are in a disgraceful position here. Can we get it through to the communities that tolerate FGM that we in this country are serious about this issue? This barbarism has to stop.

Lynne Featherstone: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that the Opposition should even begin to criticise the Government on this, because we have done more in two years than was done in the 13 years of the Labour Government. Prosecutions are important, and the first one will come to court after the new year, but our focus has to be on prevention and protection, and it is.

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and I have recently written to the Home Office about the problem of illegal encampments in Harlow and Thurrock, and about the police response to them. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this matter, and will he set out the powers that the police have to deal with illegal or unauthorised Travellers’ encampments?

Michael Penning: I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). I know both those areas well and I would be happy to talk to my hon. Friends at their convenience.

Lilian Greenwood: Given the 400% rise in anti-Semitic incidents this summer, I was pleased to hear that the Home Secretary had met representatives of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and of the Community Security Trust. Will she tell us what discussions she has had with Twitter and Facebook on this matter?

Theresa May: As the Minister for Crime Prevention has said, we have had discussions with the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the CST on the various issues that they have raised concerning anti-Semitic incidents, and in particular on how the police are responding to them. The extremism taskforce has been looking at how social media companies respond to Government requests relating to extremist material and hate crimes. We have initiated discussions on that matter and more generally on how extremist material can be taken down from such sites, and we will be progressing that work.

Cheryl Gillan: The Home Secretary will know that at least four people have recently been killed by a substance known as DNP, including, tragically, my 23-year-old constituent Sarah Houston. The substance is readily available on the internet, and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency cannot ban it because it is not a pharmaceutical product. Will she look again at reclassifying this substance as a class C drug so that no further young lives are so tragically lost?

Lynne Featherstone: I am sorry to hear about my right hon. Friend’s constituent. We keep under constant review the way in which these matters are evolving and the way in which these substances are classified, and I undertake to look into the issue that she has raised.

Stephen Pound: Further to the question asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), may I tell the Home Secretary that my Syrian Christian constituents, the Fallou family, have relatives who have fled from Nineveh across the border into Turkey? They have applied to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and been told that the first interview that could possibly be timetabled for them would be in 2017. Will the Home Secretary raise this crucial matter at the conference in Switzerland later this year?

James Brokenshire: We work closely with the UNHCR in respect of the vulnerable persons relocation scheme. I note the point that the hon. Gentleman has made regarding the timetable for an interview, and I will certainly take that away.

Julian Sturdy: Will the Home Secretary join me in praising the work of North Yorkshire police? They have launched a street triage scheme in which York-based mental health professionals join police officers on their patrols. That partnership will allow vulnerable people to receive immediate assistance and a proper mental health assessment at the scene.

Theresa May: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating North Yorkshire police on the work they have done on this new street triage scheme in York, and indeed the other local parties who have made it possible.
	The changes the Government have introduced through the street triage pilots, which are now being taken up by a number of other forces, are having a significant impact on the way the police are dealing with people with mental health problems. That presence of a health care professional means that in many force areas we are seeing a significant reduction in the number of people who are being taken to a police cell as a place of safety. That is better for not only the police, but, crucially, the individuals themselves.

David Winnick: In condemning, like everybody else, the barbaric murder carried by out by the ISIS gangsters, would the Home Secretary consider that the various aspects of the counter-terrorism Bill the Prime Minister referred to in Australia should be examined by various Committees of this House, particularly the Home Affairs Committee? Does she accept that there must be concern about police officers, instead of her, having the right to take away passports and about the whole question of whether people should be rendered stateless? I do not minimise
	the danger of those returning from Syria, but I hope the Home Secretary will bear it in mind that there are implications that should be examined by the various Committees.

Theresa May: When we publish the Bill, the hon. Gentleman will be able to see the details of our proposals, including on the temporary seizure of passports, which I have spoken about, as has the Prime Minister. The Bill will, of course, receive proper scrutiny in this House and in another place as it goes through its various stages. I do not think it is the job of the Home Secretary to suggest to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee whether or not he should have an inquiry into this Bill. I have noticed that the Home Affairs Committee is not backward in coming forward on looking at matters the Government propose.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues, but there is pressure on parliamentary time and we must now move on.

Reserve Recruitment

John Baron: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement on Army Reserve recruitment.

Julian Brazier: I am most grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for the opportunity to make this statement. Future Force 2020 represents one of the fundamental steps this Government have taken to ensure that our defence is delivered on a sustainable financial basis. The Government have ensured that the armed forces, both regular and reserve, are structured and resourced to meet the challenges of the 21st century. This is a far cry from the position we inherited, where our armed forces were run on a fundamentally unaffordable basis by the previous Government. After years of neglect, this Government are reforming and revitalising our reserve forces. We are investing £1.8 billion in better training and equipment, and reversing the decline and years of underinvestment in our reserves. We have always said that increasing the trained strength of the reserves to about 35,000 would not happen overnight; it is a five-year programme, but one year in we are making steady progress, and during the latest quarter we enlisted about twice as many people as we did in the equivalent period last year.
	The expansion of the reserves is about doing defence differently. It is not about swapping regular personnel for reserves or doing defence on the cheap; it is about changing the way we deliver defence to make the best use of our resources and to harness the talents of the wider UK society. The contribution of our reserve forces will deliver, in a cost-effective way, the capable and usable armed forces that the nation needs. It will better harness the talents of the wider community and help restore the links and understanding between the armed forces and that community.
	There have been a number of technical challenges affecting Army Reserve recruitment, which have been widely discussed in this House before, and we continue to introduce measures to improve recruitment. So far, those have included: improved financial incentives—much greater incentives with employers; removing delays, sometimes of many months, caused by medical documentation and security checks; increasing capacity at selection centres; and giving a key role for mentoring back to units.
	The programme to grow the reserves is on track. We have reversed 18 years of decline. The Army’s latest projections indicate that the Army Reserve can reach its 30,000 trained strength target by April 2019. The Chief of the General Staff, the Secretary of State and I are all committed to achieving that target.
	The future reserves programme is a bold change programme. It will make defence more flexible and able to deal with the changing demands placed upon it. I say this to the House: the plan is working.

John Baron: I thank the Minister for responding. No matter how he dresses up the figures, the latest recruitment figures for the Army Reserve show that the trained strength has fallen between April 2013 and October of
	this year. If one was being charitable, one would say that Government plans to replace 20,000 regulars with 30,000 reservists are struggling to say the least. Those of us who have opposed those plans have questioned the resulting capability gap as 20,000 regulars have been shown the door and the false economies that will loom as the Government are forced to throw more money at failing plans.
	Let us be absolutely honest about this: these plans have been in a state of flux from the beginning. The 2010 strategic defence and security review showed haste and little strategic overlay. In 2011, the then Defence Secretary stated that he would keep the regulars in order to check that the reservist plan was working and to recruit those reservists. In 2012, that plan was changed, and the regulars were allowed to leave before we had recruited any reservists. Meanwhile, the start line keeps getting changed. We talk about “one year in”, but we are actually 18 months into this plan and there has been no acknowledgement from the Government. We now have this sorry state of affairs where 20,000 experienced troops have left, including some from my own battalion the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, and we are now recruiting—even if one put the most optimistic spin on these figures—at a rate of seven reservists a month. If we are to meet our deadline and targets, we need to be recruiting nearer 250 a month. Let us not forget that we are 18 months into the plan.
	The Public Accounts Committee has condemned the plan. It said that the plan has put anticipated savings at risk
	“and is not delivering value for money.”
	The National Audit office was critical, saying:
	“There are significant risks to value for money which are currently not well understood by the Department or the Army.”
	It has even been said that these plans have been put on the Treasury’s watch list.
	I have a series of questions for the Minister. There have been extra costs: £10,000 given to ex-regulars to join the reserves,£300 to the civvies, £500 to the employee reservist per calendar month, pension liabilities, and the IT fiasco. How much extra are these plans now costing over and above the original estimate?
	Secondly, how big are our capability gaps? Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no operational fall-out from these plans and tell us what assessment has been made? Finally, in this increasingly uncertain world, surely the time has come for a fundamental reappraisal of the need for stronger defence. Trying to get our defence on the cheap is not the right approach. We should now start recruiting regulars to the Army to bring up the trained strength of the Regular Army to at least 100,000. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Julian Brazier: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for his thoughts. Let us be clear on the numbers. The Chief of the General Staff, the professional head of the Army, said to the Defence Committee on 5 November:
	“Already, at the six-month point, we have got to 2,100”—
	he was talking about new recruits to the reserves—
	“and it is my sense that we will increase the numbers beyond the target in this year…It is not something that will be solved overnight,
	because we have had the last 10 or 15 years when we have not invested in the Reserve in the way that we are now investing in the Reserve.”
	The point—I have tried to explain this to my hon. and gallant Friend a number of times—is that we had a very long period of decline and neglect. In setting up a new system that for the first time for a decade re-established proper medical checks and proper fitness checks, started to collate the numbers properly and so on, we had some glitches, which have been widely discussed. Most of the improvements we made have happened only in the past few months. In the last quarter, we recruited almost twice as many people as in the equivalent quarter last year. I am grateful to him for his continuing interest in the subject, but may I recommend that he does what almost every single unit I have visited recommends and visits some reserve units to discover the exciting things that are going on?

Kevan Jones: The Army Reserve has expanded by just 20 troops in the past year—20, not the 30,000 personnel promised by the Prime Minister. Capita is being paid £50 million a year to assist in recruitment, meaning that each new net recruit costs taxpayers £2.5 million. That does not include the millions spent on online and other advertising campaigns. The Minister is failing so badly, two years after the policy was announced, that the upper age limit for recruitment is now to be raised, even though, from his reply to the question, one would not think that anything had changed.
	This is a shambles—yet more along the lines of the failed IT systems that wasted millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and the repeatedly missed and repeatedly readjusted recruitment targets. Now we have the fiasco of the increase in the upper age limit for recruitment, changing the goalposts to meet the targets. Urgent clarity is needed on the level of integration between regular and reserve units following the recent statement by the new Chief of the General Staff. Will the Minister confirm whether it is now Government policy that reservists will not be called on routinely and will instead be used only in times of emergency? When was he consulted on that change in policy?
	May I ask the Minister to be honest with the Army and the British people about what size he envisages not only the reserve but the British Army will be at the end of the process? He said that his policy is bold. Yes, it is bold, but it is fundamentally flawed, it has failed to be tested, and the tragic consequence will be that Britain's defence will be vulnerable for years to come.

Julian Brazier: I think that the hon. Gentleman had drafted his points before he heard my answer to my hon. and gallant Friend, so I will not repeat the same points about the changes in the system that are just coming through now and are evident in the latest quarter.
	Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman’s more substantive questions. The message coming from the Chief of the General Staff has been cleared with the Secretary of State and me. We are all at one on this and I am grateful for the opportunity to make that clear. When we talk about integration, there is an important distinction to be made between compulsory call-out, which will occur only in times of public emergency—in the long term, because we suddenly hit an unexpected conflict, or in
	the short term, because of flooding and so on—and opportunities for intelligent mobilisation for formed bodies or individuals that will be there all the time. Most people join the reserves because they want an opportunity to deploy on operations. It may help the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for a long time, if I give a few examples of that.
	In February, under Operation Toral, the next phase in Afghanistan, a formed platoon from my local battalion, 3rd Battalion the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment, will go to Afghanistan with its sister unit, the Royal Anglians. We have 24 people, 19 of whom are medics, going out on the Ebola operation. In 2012, the framework battalion for Cyprus was a reserve battalion. The opportunities are there, but call-out will be compulsory only when there is a real emergency. It is worth noting that 25,000 individuals went through Iraq and Afghanistan, most of them under a Labour Government. All of them went through the intelligent mobilisation process, except for a relatively small number involved in the original Iraq operation.
	My understanding throughout this has been that Labour’s policy is to support our plan in principle, while doing what an Opposition always should do: hold the Government to account for delivery. I have heard nothing in what the hon. Gentleman has said to suggest that that has changed, and I am pleased about that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. A large number of hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Ordinarily, I try to accommodate everybody; that probably will not be possible today, because there is considerable pressure on time, as there are two statements to follow. What is required is exemplary brevity, a tutorial in which can now be provided by Mr James Gray.

James Gray: I will seek to do that, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend the Minister has a long-standing commitment to the reserve Army, which I salute. I am proud that my Territorial Army regiment is, I understand, 125% above its recruitment target, which is great. Other regiments around England could follow that example. However, does he agree that we cannot replace regular soldiers with reserves on a regular basis? Would it not be better to do away with the 82,000 and 30,000 figures, and replace that with an Army of 112,000, which could be made up partly of one and partly of the other?

Julian Brazier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I am not quite certain what he is proposing. We are planning for an Army of 82,000 regulars, and 30,000 reservists integrated with them—in other words, available as formed sub-units or individuals to supplement the regulars outside periods of great national emergency, and to be called up in much larger numbers during periods of great national emergency.
	May I pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that I failed to answer? We make no apology whatever for recruiting older people to specialist roles, such as intelligence roles, and as medics, where they have specialist skills. As for the
	new standards of fitness and so on that we are introducing for medics, there is no suggestion of having those people in the combat arms.

Bob Ainsworth: Those of us who, in principle, support what the Minister is trying to achieve have always warned about the potential for over-optimism, and about the resistance and about the need to drive this in. None of this appears to be working at the speed that was envisaged. The Government really have to accept that there is a bigger gap in capability than they have hitherto acknowledged, and that the gap will probably go on for longer than was planned. They must acknowledge that and say what they plan to do about it.

Julian Brazier: I have the greatest respect for the right hon. Gentleman. I am glad that he, too, buys into the principle of the plan. We are committed to the same targets. He will see that as the measures that we have taken to unblock the recruiting system feed through into the numbers—let us remember that we are looking at 12-month rolling data, and that will take time—we will achieve these targets. We are committed to getting 30,000 reservists trained by 2018. I look forward to further exchanges on this with Members from across the House.

Crispin Blunt: The assumptions underlying this policy were not tested because of the experiences of the Minister for the Armed Forces in the TA 30 years ago. I wrote to the Secretary of State over a year ago to point out that this policy was highly unlikely to work, and that the Department would have to throw a fortune at it to try to make it work. It is not working. When will Ministers face up to that? At the current rate of progress, it will take between 100 and 200 years to achieve the target.

Julian Brazier: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend. He says that the policy should have been tested; the recommendations came out of an inquiry chaired by the Chief of the Defence Staff. They have been strongly and publicly supported by the Chief of the General Staff, both publicly in front of the Select Committee on Defence and privately in front of the all-party group, of which my hon. Friend is a member. We know that we can achieve this; the plain fact is that we said that it would take five years. We are unblocking the recruiting system. The units that I visit all suggest that they are well on their way. We will achieve the targets.

Gisela Stuart: When those reforms were originally launched, one of the key principles was for the reservist force to “routinely share” jobs that were once the
	“exclusive domain of Regular forces”.
	There was therefore that integration. Back in October, when the Chief of the General Staff suggested that reservists would be used only in emergencies, he was kind of rebuked for not being in line with Government policy. Is not the reality now that the original policy of sharing is no longer possible, and we are reduced, because of the numbers, to using them only in national emergencies?

Julian Brazier: I have the greatest admiration for the hon. Lady. I sat next to her on the Defence Committee for four years, but she really has missed the point on this. Nobody has rebuked the CGS. The CGS designed the detail for this plan in his last job but one. The hon. Lady misunderstands the difference between opportunities for regular use of reserves, of which I have just given three examples, and compulsory call-out. That is the distinction she must understand.

Martin Horwood: Does the Minister agree that recruitment to the Army Reserve in the six months to 30 September will be well over 2,000 people, which represents a 60% increase on the same period last year? If that acceleration in Army Reserve recruitment is sustained, it will be in stark contrast to the planned reduction in the TA under the last Government?

Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a 60% increase over six months, and as the bulk of that occurred during the most recent quarter, it is almost a doubling in that period. He is absolutely right. It is a tremendous turnaround after years of decline under the previous Government.

Derek Twigg: I thank the Minister for reversing the daft proposal to close the TA centre in Widnes following my representations. Does he have any concerns about how Capita is working? For example, a constituent of mine has applied to join the regulars but has been given four separate dates verbally and has still not been able to join the Army. Is not the problem with Capita as well?

Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have the greatest respect, write to me so that I can look into that individual case? We have had a number of delays in the system. We are sorting those out, and the process is now working much faster for both regulars and reservists, but I would be grateful for a letter.

Bob Stewart: I have been waiting by my phone for the call to join the Army Reserve, but so far nothing has happened. What percentage of the 30,000 Army Reserve personnel will be available for not a great national emergency at any one time—assuming we get 30,000?

Julian Brazier: Over a decade or so, 25,000 reservists were called out of what was then a falling institution. I have given my hon. and gallant Friend some examples of the things we are calling reservists out for now—on intelligent mobilisation, not compulsorily, for Afghanistan, for Cyprus, and for interesting exercises all over the world, such as the British Army Training Unit Suffield in Canada and live firing in Kenya. I cannot give him a firm number, but we have seen that large numbers of reserves are available and willing to come. Compulsory call out, as the CGS has made clear, will happen in a national emergency.

Angus Robertson: On 24 June, the MOD told me in answer to a written question that £300 million had been spent so far on the recruiting partnering project. How much money has been spent to date on this fiasco?

Julian Brazier: I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman to give him a total figure. I do not recognise the figure he quotes, but I will write to him. Most of the Capita programme is directed towards the regular forces. It has had some difficulties, some around software, which has been a feature of Governments of all complexions. It is in the process of a considerable set of improvements, most of which are now in place.

Richard Drax: I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on all the efforts he is making in this regard, but may I make one small point? According to the sources I speak to, the smaller the Army gets, the more professional it needs to be in order to be more flexible in dealing with a greatly changing world, so the proportion should stay at 80:20 and not move to 70:30. Can we therefore go back the other way and have a smaller Army, yes, but one that is more professional, not less so? I am not saying that the part timers are not professional—they are—but a smaller full-time Army has the necessary flexibility.

Julian Brazier: I hear my hon. and gallant Friend with respect. However, if he visits, as I am sure he does from time to time, the Royal Wessex Yeomanry in his own constituency, he will see just how good that unit is and how much it can achieve. The size of the Regular Army came out of the very difficult decisions that we had to make in the strategic defence and security review. We have to be clear that if we want to have a framework to expand a small professional Army, and if we want to keep connections between that small professional Army and the wider civilian community, we need a substantial reserve.

Madeleine Moon: I do not think that anyone in the House would dispute the fact that this is a bold challenge. No one is unaware that there have been technical problems and glitches, but the Minister must know that there is a high degree of concern that only 32% of the regulars have confidence that reservists will be well integrated within their units, and that there has been a net increase to the reserves of only 20. What can we do to improve on those figures?

Julian Brazier: I have already answered the second question from the hon. Lady, who is another fellow member of the Select Committee, by listing the very many changes that we have made to the recruiting pipeline and noting that in the last quarter we almost doubled the numbers coming through. On her first point, there are indeed some in the Regular Army who do not agree with the changes, having seen former comrades leave, but the fact is that a Chief of the Defence Staff chaired the original commission that set out the overall plan and the Chief of the General Staff wrote the detailed blueprint.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. We need a pithy question without preamble, perhaps to be authored and delivered by the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis).

Julian Lewis: Is not part of the problem that the increase in reserves has been seen as a cover for a cut in regular forces? What can the
	Minister, as a champion of the reserves even when we were spending more money on the armed forces, say to dispel that impression?

Julian Brazier: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question, not least because he is a former member of the Royal Naval Reserve, who are well ahead of their recruiting targets. The short answer is that if we want defence to prosper in this country when there are very many calls on the public purse, we need the footprint around the country that the reserve forces have—they are represented in half of all the constituencies in this House—to remind people what armed forces are all about.

George Howarth: Does the Minister accept that part of the problem is that some applicants, although they have the potential, do not yet meet all the requirements? Does he believe that there is a place in the recruitment system for the military preparation course that was devised by Lieutenant Colonel Tony Hollingsworth, who runs Knowsley Skills Academy?

Julian Brazier: The right hon. Gentleman asks a really excellent question. This is why we are looking at the criteria again. We have reintroduced proper medicals, proper fitness tests, proper intelligence tests, and all the things that disappeared under the previous Government. He is right. There should be room for flexibility, and where people are, for example, a little bit below the right level in the fitness test, units have measures in place to give them coaching to bring them to up it. I would like to have a longer conversation with him about this another time.

Bob Russell: I am proud of our reserve forces and grateful to employers who participate to allow workers to serve, but given the huge cuts in the regular forces what happens if recruitment for the reserve forces does not meet the targets the Minister is talking about?

Julian Brazier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We are confident that we will meet the targets. I say again that in the last three-month period we achieved almost double the equivalent level for last year. We are committed to those targets so his question does not arise.

John Cryer: After this expensive disaster, does the Minister have a shred of a regret about hacking away 20% of the Army’s strength, particularly given the fact that some regular soldiers served in Iraq, in Afghanistan and at the Olympics and were then told, “There’s your P45. Now sod off.”? What a disgraceful way to treat soldiers.

Julian Brazier: This Government have taken huge steps to build the armed forces covenant and to ensure that veterans who left the armed forces on redundancy terms were well looked after. Members of the hon. Gentleman’s own Front-Bench team made it clear that under Labour there would have to be cuts in defence. The previous shadow Secretary of State said:
	“The truth is the Labour Party would have to make cuts if we were in power.”
	We have had to make difficult decisions because of the economic circumstances we inherited.

Richard Benyon: As someone who has visited reserve units, I find increasing optimism among commanding officers and others that they are going to achieve the targets. May I suggest a very small tweak? The emergency service cap on recruits needs to be reviewed. For example, in the Met police a reserve recruitment cap of 0.25% has existed since the cold war. This could be an ideal recruiting ground. Will the Minister look at it?

Julian Brazier: I am most grateful for the question from my hon. and gallant Friend, who served in the same regiment as I did, although he was a regular and I was a reservist. He is exactly right. The cap is being addressed. Clearly, the Metropolitan police need to have a cap, but it is much too low at present. There is a discussion going on. A commanding officer I met had lost three military police soldiers from her unit because they had got jobs with the Met and been made to resign because the quota was filled.

Barry Sheerman: I am not a defence buff, but I believe in the security of our country and I recognise the dangers that are emerging across Europe. If I were sitting in the Kremlin right now, I would be very happy about the run-down of our regular forces. What does the Minister say about that?

Julian Brazier: I have too much respect for the hon. Gentleman to get too party political about what happened to our defences under the previous Government. If he chooses to cruise the BBC website, he will find that in the past four weeks Vladimir Putin has announced a very large expansion in the Russians’ part-time reserve army.

John Glen: One area of apprehension in Salisbury is the package of incentives and support available to small and medium-sized employers. Will the Minister say something about why employers should be content to allow their employees to volunteer to join the reserves, and why that package has improved?

Julian Brazier: The first thing we should recognise is that this is part of corporate social responsibility. Any employer who signs up faces the prospect that in extremis his employee might be compulsorily mobilised. What he gets for that is somebody who is motivated and who is trained in a variety of ways not available in civilian life. What he gets also is a loyal employee with good values. The financial side has been improved in various ways,
	including the £500 a month extra compensation for a small business that loses an employee on operations, over and above the full compensation package.

Frank Roy: How much money has been spent on television recruitment ads this year, and is the Minister happy with that cost?

Julian Brazier: I am sorry, I did not hear the question.

Mr Speaker: How much money has been spent on television recruitment advertisements this year?

Julian Brazier: I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman.

David Nuttall: Does the Minister think that the closure of recruiting offices such as the one in Bury in my constituency has had any effect on the number of reservists being recruited?

Julian Brazier: I do not believe that that has had a direct effect. Most reservists join initially through their local reserve unit or, in some cases, through the national website. There was one immediate indirect effect—while all the glitches were in the system, which we have ironed out over the past few months, the lack of somebody immediately available on the high street to mentor somebody who had not already got dug in with a unit made a significant difference. I do not believe it will make a long-term difference.

Paul Flynn: Being the fourth highest spender on defence in the world has led to the deaths of 632 of our brave British soldiers in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction and in Helmand in the belief that not a shot would be fired. Why cannot we pursue an independent foreign policy and recognise that spending above our budgets and trying to punch above our weight always results in dying beyond our responsibilities?

Julian Brazier: I am not sure how that fits into the statement, but I am very happy to comment. The fact is that we should be proud of what we have achieved in Helmand province. That operation started, as did the previous one, under a Labour Government.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but I have taken 20 Back Benchers and I did give notice that it might not be possible to accommodate everybody, rather exceptionally, today.

G20

David Cameron: I am sure the whole House will join me in utterly condemning the sickening murder of American aid worker Peter Kassig. Our thoughts are with his family and friends at this time.
	We will not be cowed by these sick terrorists. They will be defeated and they must face the justice they deserve. The threat is faced by countries right across the world. We must face it together. It featured strongly in the discussions I had with Prime Minister Tony Abbott in my bilateral visit to Australia. I took the opportunity of setting out further detail on some of the steps we will take as part of the counter-terrorism Bill here in the United Kingdom. As the House knows, they include new powers for police at ports to seize passports, to stop suspects travelling and to stop British nationals returning to the UK unless they do so on our terms. Also included are new rules to prevent airlines that do not comply with our no-fly lists, or our security screening measures, from landing in the UK. Every country across the world is examining what powers are necessary to keep their people safe, and I am determined that we should do that right here. We will make a full announcement about the counter-terrorism Bill soon.
	Let me turn to the G20 summit in Brisbane this weekend. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott set a clear agenda for the world economy and we gave it our strong backing. The Brisbane action plan includes a commitment on dealing with our debts and an infrastructure hub that will see British companies as part of a global pipeline for the biggest projects on the planet, but above all it is a plan for growth and jobs, with every country pledging actions that will boost global growth and therefore help create jobs. The aim is an additional $2 trillion to be added to the global economy.
	When it comes to growth last year, this year and the forecast for next year, as the head of the International Monetary Fund said in Brisbane, it is Britain and America that are leading the pack. However, it is also clear that growth is stalling in the eurozone, world trade is not developing as fast as it should, previously fast-growing economies are slowing down and only today Japan entered recession. Those warning signs in the global economy show that it is more important than ever that we stick to our long-term economic plan. That is the only way we can secure a better future for our country.
	There were also important discussions on climate change, on which China and America took important steps forward at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit in terms of moving towards a deal in Paris next year. Britain will continue to play a key role, including by using our already earmarked resources for the United Nations green climate fund. In terms of the global negotiations, the European Union has taken the lead with significant planned cuts in carbon emissions, and I made clear the importance of every country, Australia included, making a contribution to securing a deal next year.
	My focus at this summit was on helping to deliver our long-term economic plan by addressing some of the big global challenges that could potentially threaten our recovery at home. There was important progress on fighting
	protectionism; on dealing with the damaging effects of global tax avoidance and corruption; and on confronting the instability caused by conflict and disease. I want briefly to take each of those in turn.
	On fighting protectionism and promoting free trade, we welcomed the breakthrough on the Bali trade facilitation agreement, which had been stuck for so long. After an agreement between America and India, it will now go ahead. There was also an important meeting between the countries of the European Union and the United States to agree that an EU-US trade deal must be done next year. That could add £10 billion to the UK economy alone.
	Such trade deals can mean jobs and growth for Britain, so I challenged European leaders to think ambitiously about other deals that could be done, including with our host, Australia, and with emerging markets such as India and China. We pressed for reform of the World Trade Organisation so that poverty-busting trade deals can be put together more quickly, and agreed and implemented. Britain, Germany and the US, among others, all agreed that the way this organisation works needs to change in the future.
	Secondly, there was some progress on ensuring that big companies pay the taxes they owe. This is not just a technical issue; it is a moral one. Ensuring that the correct taxes are paid is vital in sustaining low taxes and enabling hard-working families and small businesses to keep more of the money that they earn. That is why Britain first put this on the international agenda at the G8 in Northern Ireland last year. This issue is now firmly hard-wired into the G20 agenda.
	This summit agreed a G20-wide action plan to ensure that there is nowhere for large companies to avoid paying taxes that are due. Some 93 different countries and tax authorities are now signed up to sharing tax information automatically; before the G8 in Northern Ireland, the number was just 29. As the OECD set out in Brisbane, the action we have taken so far already means that, in its view, $37 billion of extra tax has been paid by big corporations.
	The Lough Erne summit made important commitments at G8 level to stop the true owners of companies from hiding behind a veil of secrecy. That is vital in tackling the cancer of corruption that does so much to destroy countries and to increase risks to our own security. In Brisbane, we agreed to extend the work on beneficial ownership to cover the whole G20, China included.
	Thirdly, Britain continued to play a leading role in dealing with the threat of conflict and disease. That is vital not only in keeping our people safe, but in ensuring our long-term prosperity. On the conflict in Ukraine, we called on Russia to respect the Minsk agreements and made it clear that if it does not, we remain ready to intensify sanctions. Of course, there is an economic cost to us from sanctions, but I believe that the cost of allowing such a fundamental breach of our rules-based system to go unchecked would be infinitely greater in the long run.
	I met President Putin and once again made it clear that continued destabilisation of Ukraine can only mean more sanctions and more pressure. He has said that he does not want a frozen conflict and, as he put it to me, he sees Ukraine as a single political space, but he must be judged by his deeds, not by his words.
	On Ebola, I wrote to Australian Prime Minister Abbott ahead of the summit to secure a specific G20 leaders’ statement with a clear plan for dealing with the disease and for improving our readiness to respond to such epidemics in future. Other countries, including South Korea, Japan and Australia, are now doing more to help with more money, trained medical staff and equipment, while the IMF agreed to double its current programmes in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea and to provide additional debt relief.
	The UK will continue to lead the way on the development of a vaccine, with the Wellcome Trust establishing a joint research fund of more than £1 million. We welcomed the support of the English and Scottish Football Associations, which will raise money at their friendly international tomorrow night. The UK Government will match fund any public donations up to £5 million.
	I pushed the G20 to consider additional measures that could improve the ability of the global community to respond to a similar outbreak of disease in the future. This includes the possibility of a standing pool of global medical experts who can be deployed quickly during the early stages of a potential epidemic; strengthening in-country surveillance and health infrastructure; asking the IMF and the World Bank to explore new mechanisms for ensuring that the world is better prepared to deal with such pandemics in future; and doing more to fight bacteria that are resistant to present-day antibiotics. The World Health Organisation itself requires some fundamental reform.
	This was a good G20 for Britain. We delivered progress on the key global economic challenges that will help to protect us from a global economic downturn. In doing so, we supported our long-term economic plan to repair the broken economy we inherited, and to deliver jobs and growth in every part of our country. I commend this statement to the House.

Edward Miliband: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I join him in expressing horror and revulsion at the barbaric murder of US aid worker Peter Kassig. Once again, this is a demonstration of ISIL’s evil ideology perpetrated against the innocent—our thoughts go out to his family at this terrible time—and it reinforces our determination to defeat ISIL.
	Let me start with the situation in Ukraine. The ceasefire agreed in September is extremely fragile, and there are recent reports, confirmed by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, of further Russian military vehicles crossing the border. Does the Prime Minister think that enough is being done to send a clear message to Russia about its aggression, and to support President Poroshenko’s Government? Under what circumstances will the UK push for further sanctions against President Putin and Russia? We are all well aware of the way that a conflict such as the one in Ukraine can generate headlines and then be forgotten. This must not become a forgotten conflict.
	Let me turn to the issues on the formal G20 agenda. As with any summit, the task is to turn good intentions into concrete measures. Tax avoidance is a problem that
	affects rich and poor countries alike. In June 2013 at the G8, the Prime Minister promised that all UK Crown dependencies and overseas territories would produce registers on who are the real owners of shell companies. Seventeen months on from the G8, may I ask for an update on progress towards those goals? This weekend the G20 repeated the commitment of the G8 that developing countries would have a place at the negotiating table as part of the process to reform global tax rules, but as I understand it, 18 months on from the G8 that has not happened. Can the Prime Minister explain why not?
	On climate change, I agree with the Prime Minister on the welcome steps made by President Obama and President Xi last week on carbon emissions. I also welcome the agreement to support the climate fund that is designed to help with the effects of climate change. When will the UK announce our contribution to the climate fund, and will the Prime Minister explain why there has been a delay in doing so? What is being done to bring more sceptical countries with us for the ambitious agreement that we need at the vital talks in Paris next year?
	On the Ebola crisis, I welcome the UK’s role as the second largest donor to help tackle this potential threat not just to people in west Africa, but across the world. However, the G20 conclusions were short on specific commitments from other countries. What does the Prime Minister think we can do to encourage further other countries—including those within the EU—to ensure that we tackle the crisis with aid, equipment and, especially, health workers?
	Finally, let me turn to the G20 conclusions on global growth. Today the Prime Minister tells us that red lights are flashing in the global economy—I think that is what is known as getting your excuses in early. He used to tell us that the problems in the British economy were all to do with the British Government and nothing to do with international factors; now he wants to tell us that on his watch they are all to do with international factors and nothing to do with the British Government.
	Is it not the truth that before the Prime Minister went to Brisbane we already knew that his export targets were off track and that the trade deficit was the highest it has been for 25 years? Before he went to Brisbane, we knew that Britain’s productivity had stagnated on his watch, and that average families are £1,600 a year worse off. He has gone from saying that everything is fixed thanks to him, to saying that everything is not fixed but it is nothing to do with him. All along he should have been listening to the British people, who see deep problems in an economy not working for them. Is it time that he stopped blaming everybody else for an economy that is great for a few people at the top, but that is not delivering for most working people?

David Cameron: Let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks about Peter Kassig on which there is complete unity across this House and country. He asked whether the message is clear enough on Ukraine, and I believe that all the European leaders, including the European Commission and others who had meetings with President Putin, gave a very clear message—it has actually been quite refreshing how much unity there has been between the countries of the European Union on the one hand, and the US on the other, in terms of giving a very clear message.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked what would trigger further sanctions, and the easiest way to answer that is to say that further destabilisation would trigger further sanctions, just as taking down destabilisation would result in the removal of sanctions. He says that Ukraine should not be a forgotten conflict, and that is absolutely right. We must not have a frozen conflict in Europe in the way that the world—in my view, wrongly—moved on after the destabilisation of Georgia.
	On the G20 tax agenda, every one of the Crown dependencies and overseas territories has signed up to having an action plan on beneficial ownership, which is progress. Some of them have registers and some are considering—as we are—making those public. Crucially, every single one has agreed to the automatic exchange of tax information. That is the real breakthrough, I think, because if all those tax authorities are exchanging information, it means that companies cannot hide where they are making their money and more and fairer taxes will be paid as a result.
	On climate change, the right hon. Gentleman asks what is being done to persuade the sceptical countries. There is pressure on every country to bring forward its plans for the meeting in Paris, and that should include every country in the world. In terms of the climate fund, Britain has money available for climate funds—we were one of the first to put money to one side and make it available—but it is important this time to make sure that other countries are bringing in their donations. That has not always happened in the past, and I am glad that it is happening. The biggest breakthrough in recent days is the fact that China and America came to an agreement at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit to put more on the table in terms of carbon emissions.
	On Ebola, the right hon. Gentleman asked what specific pledges were made. At the G20, Korea and Japan made specific pledges and, of course, Australia has backed up its plan to provide 100 beds in Sierra Leone under the plans that we have. At the EU summit we managed to double other countries’ donations so that the EU is up to €1 billion.
	The right hon. Gentleman ended with an extraordinary set of points on growth. I am very happy to defend and take some credit for what is happening in the British economy, which is growing at 3% and has the biggest fall in unemployment on record and 400,000 new businesses. Because of the difficult decisions that we took, the British economy is doing well. The difference is that while there are problems in the world economy, we can see that Britain is outperforming other countries. The figures speak for themselves.
	It is always a pleasure to get back to Britain and find that some things have not changed: our language, the beauties of our climate—and, crucially, that the right hon. Gentleman is still in his place.

Peter Tapsell: Would my right hon. Friend’s reportedly robust private conversations with President Putin be even more persuasive if it was seen that Britain is rearming?

David Cameron: What I would say is that we have one of the top five defence budgets anywhere in the world. We spend more than £30 billion on defence and people know that we have hugely capable armed forces.
	Because of the difficult decisions we have made, we will see a drumbeat of new destroyers, new frigates, new aircraft carriers and new fighter jets coming off the production lines, so we are in a very strong position.
	But I do not actually believe that the solution to Ukraine is a military solution. Of course it is right that NATO is helping to strengthen Ukraine’s defence infrastructure, as we agreed in Cardiff, but crucially what is required is a political settlement that respects the independence of Ukraine. What President Putin will respect is a unity of purpose on behalf of European countries and the United States to maintain the pressure and the sanctions until he changes his behaviour.

Jack Straw: On the crucial issue of tax avoidance, could the Prime Minister say whether he is satisfied with the attitude and progress being made by Mr Juncker in respect of the scandalous behaviour by Luxembourg when he was its Prime Minister?

David Cameron: I am satisfied that every country in the European Union has signed up to the automatic exchange of tax information. For many years, it was not only Luxembourg but one or two other countries in the EU that did not sign up to that. We are making progress, but I will never be fully satisfied, because until every jurisdiction in the world signs up we will not be able to get rid of tax avoidance.

Malcolm Bruce: In the conversations with Mr Putin, did the Prime Minister remind him of his unwelcome interventions in Georgia and Transnistria, and make it clear that the Baltic states were clearly off limits to the EU and NATO? May I welcome what the Prime Minister said about additional funding for Ebola and the global attack on taxes? On climate change—on which Britain has been in the lead globally—can he indicate what Tony Abbott said Australia’s contribution would be?

David Cameron: To answer my right hon. Friend’s last question first, the Australians have pledged a 5% cut in carbon emissions, which they say is equivalent to a 19% cut on business as usual, but I think that they will face further pressure, as an important economy, to throw in more cuts to carbon as the whole world comes together in Paris.
	On my right hon. Friend’s other questions, the discussions I had with President Putin were frank. We did not mention every problem and issue between Britain and Russia, but crucially we looked at how we could try to find a pathway by which Ukraine’s integrity and independence are respected. That is the key to de-escalating the situation, and I was very frank about that.
	On Ebola, Britain has played a key part and we should be proud of that. Others are now stepping up and the World Bank is also looking at ways it can help us to sustain that commitment.

Mr Speaker: Perhaps my natural generosity got the better of me. For the avoidance of doubt, knights, no matter how distinguished and indeed amiable, do not have an automatic right to ask three questions rather than one.

Pat McFadden: The Prime Minister mentioned the need for new anti-terror laws. Does he regret watering down the ones we had in the first place?

David Cameron: I think we have done the right thing in terms of listening to the security and intelligence services and listening to the independent reviewer of terrorism, who said he thinks the steps we have taken have been the right ones. Of course, we will announce the full range of measures we will be taking in the anti-terrorism Bill. The Bill will come before the House, I believe, before the end of the month.

Malcolm Rifkind: While I pay tribute to the many robust exchanges that the Prime Minister and other western leaders had with Mr Putin on Ukraine, has there not yet again been a failure to make clear to Mr Putin that the heavy Russian artillery and forces flooding into Ukraine as we speak will lead not just to sanctions but to economic and financial sanctions? Will my right hon. Friend not acknowledge that further visa controls and asset freezes on Mr Putin’s cronies will be as meaningless, impotent and irrelevant as they have been in the past?

David Cameron: I hugely respect my right hon. and learned Friend’s position, views and experience, but on this particular issue I do not entirely agree. If we look at the decline in the ruble, the difficulties Russian banks have had in raising finance and the fact that Russian growth has been downgraded, all combined with an oil price where the Russian budget does not remotely balance, I think there is economic pressure. As long as we stay united, keep up that pressure and respond to further destabilisation with further pressure, it may take time but I think we can persuade Russia that there is a different and better path to take.

Dennis Skinner: Is there not something faintly comical about a British Prime Minister talking about putting more sanctions on Russia, while the same British Prime Minister is helping Russian oligarchs in Britain to bankroll the Tory party in which he is helping to make the money? It sounds to me like hypocrisy.

David Cameron: I do not even know where to start with the hon. Gentleman. When he started his question I thought perhaps he had forgotten that the communists were not running Russia any more. I know he used to back them in those days, but I thought he would have moved on a bit since then.

Kenneth Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when one looks for concrete practical steps that might be taken to achieve the wholly desirable goal of increased growth in the global economy, a very great deal depends on the successful achievement of a comprehensive trade deal between the European Union and the United States? As this is one of the few areas on which the Republicans in the United States agree with the Obama Administration, did he press other European leaders to go for rapid progress on agreement at this stage in the short window of opportunity between the mid-term elections being over and the next presidential campaign beginning?

David Cameron: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The change in Congress, if anything, makes the chances of a successful trade deal more likely and so we should push as hard as we possibly can. The point I made to other European leaders is that we need to work hard to quash some of the wholly false arguments that are being put about by opponents of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. It does not in any way have to affect our national health service, for instance, and nor does it mean that we will be lowering food or health and safety standards. Indeed, there is an argument to make to non-governmental organisations and others that Europe and America setting some of these global standards is actually good for the world, as well as being a free trade deal that can lift growth and jobs.

Catherine McKinnell: Will the Prime Minister update the House on specific progress on delivering transparency in extractive industries, which we know cause so much corruption that is damaging to developing countries?

David Cameron: In this area, on this occasion, the G20 rather under-delivered. We have made progress on the exchange of tax information, which is vital, and on the idea that every country has to have a process of transparency for beneficial ownership so that tax authorities can find out who owns what, but the hon. Lady is right that the third leg is further progress on the extractive industries and the extractive industries transparency initiative. We made limited progress, but it was not a strong feature of what we agreed at the weekend.

John Redwood: Given that the United States has been the fastest-growing advanced economy since 2009, based on the exploitation of cheap energy, was there any discussion about what we and others need to do to compete with America industrially? We will need to invest in a lot of cheap energy to keep up.

David Cameron: There was a discussion about energy, and it is notable now that America starts these interventions by explaining that it is the world’s largest producer of oil and gas. My right hon. Friend makes an important point though: we should not be left out in the shale gas revolution. It has helped American competitiveness and energy prices, and I want to ensure that we do everything in the UK to take advantage of it too.

Keith Vaz: The summit marked the first face-to-face meeting between the Prime Minister and Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. The right hon. Gentleman has said previously that trade between our two countries has barely scratched the surface of what is possible. Did he discuss specific measures for increasing trade, and did he persuade Mr Modi to visit the UK?

David Cameron: I had a very good meeting with Prime Minister Modi, who got the conference off to a good start by agreeing to lift India’s block to the Bali trade facilitation agreement, which is vital to helping drive global growth. On the British-India relationship, Britain is, I think, the second-largest inward investor in India, but the right hon. Gentleman is right that more could be done on trade. We discussed the need for the
	EU-India free-trade agreement to get going again and for structural reform in India to help open up her economy and lead to higher growth rates, and I am clear that Prime Minister Modi is a man with a clear vision for doing economically for his country what he succeeded in doing for Gujarat.

Liam Fox: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on some plain speaking on the European economic outlook, but does he accept that the poor performance of the eurozone is not the problem, but merely the symptom, and that the problem is the euro itself—still intellectually flawed and politically dangerous? Does he accept that until eurozone leaders are willing to de-risk the entire project, not only will it pose a threat to global economic stability, but millions of young Europeans will find their economic prospects sacrificed on the altar of a political project?

David Cameron: My views on the euro are well known: I do not think that Britain should join it. However, there are three steps that all countries should be taking, whether or not they are in the euro. First, they should be putting in place plans to deal with fiscal deficits and put them on a proper, long-term footing; secondly, they should be pursuing structural reforms, as we have done in this country, to make it easier to start and grow businesses—European countries could do more in that regard—and thirdly, and crucially, Britain and America have shown that an active monetary policy, delivered by an independent central bank, can make a real difference. Given the signs of rather staggered growth in Europe, I think the European Central Bank needs to take that action as well.

Angus Robertson: This is my first opportunity to congratulate Nicola Sturgeon on becoming leader of the Scottish National party and Scotland’s next First Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) on becoming the deputy leader of the SNP, which is a political party now with more members in Scotland than all the other parties in the House combined.
	A majority of G20 members, including the United States of America, have now committed to attending the international conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons which will take place in a few weeks in Vienna. I ask the Prime Minister to confirm: will the UK be attending—yes or no?

David Cameron: First, I am very happy to congratulate Nicola Sturgeon on her election and appointment. One thing I noticed about the G20 was that almost every country made a point of saying how pleased it was that the UK had stayed together. It was a theme of unity, whether in discussions with the President of Burma or the President of the USA. On the Vienna conference, I will have to consider the hon. Gentleman’s question and get back to him.

Edward Leigh: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that one can be a good, loyal, hard-working, tax-paying Conservative and worry over whether the best way to help the poor of the world is to spend £650 million on a climate fund, taken out of an aid budget that increased by 28% last year? Does he agree that those sort of Conservatives need to be reassured?

David Cameron: We made some very clear promises in our manifesto that we would lift our aid budget to reach the long-term target of 0.7% of gross national income. We made that promise, and I think that breaking our promise to the poorest people in the world would not be the right thing to do. When I think about some of the problems we face here in our country—whether it be the pressure of asylum seekers or the pressure of immigration —I realise that our aid budget is, if not the answer, part of the answer. If we can solve some of the underlying problems of instability in some of these countries—sometimes instability can be caused by the effects of climate change, making it harder for some countries to feed their people—I think we are doing the right thing.

Rushanara Ali: The Save Remittance Giving Campaign, which is supported by MPs, 120,000 British people and Olympic gold medallist Mo Farah, called for a reduction in remittance costs. I very much welcome the G20 commitment to reduce it from 10% to 5% because remittance makes a big contribution to development, including economic development. Can the Prime Minister update us on when the money transfer service scheme will be implemented because countries such as Somalia are suffering, as there are no banking systems and no effective ways of getting money in if banks stop facilities as has happened, so we need urgent action?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady is absolutely right that remittances are a critical source of income for poor people in the poorest countries and they really do help with the reduction of poverty. Action by the G20 has been a success, resulting in the decrease of the G20 average cost from around 10% to 7.5%, but more needs to be done. Of course the problem she highlights, where remittances are particularly difficult for some countries such as Somalia, relates to the issues I dealt with in the previous question about the need to build capacity in these countries, including through honest banks and honest Governments, so that people can get the remittances they deserve.

Hugh Robertson: The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on the robust line he took with President Putin. Is he able to tell us whether there were any discussions with other G20 leaders on stemming the flow of funds to Islamic State, particularly from the Gulf region?

David Cameron: There were a number of discussions around the G20. I talked to President Obama about this issue and at some length with Prime Minister Abbott. I think there is a real commitment to recognise that we are in a fight that affects so many countries. Young people travelling from so many of our countries have been radicalised into fighting in this way, and we must do everything we can to cut off the sources of finance. That means action at the UN, which we will continue to take, but if we consider further action is necessary, we should take it.

Derek Twigg: In order to compete better globally, we need to do something about our productivity problems—a subject to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition referred earlier. How does
	having so many people on low pay and in insecure jobs with falling living standards address that productivity problem?

David Cameron: We first need to recognise that this year has seen the largest fall in unemployment in Britain since records began, and it is a complete fiction to say that all of those jobs are low paid. That is not the case. A lot of those jobs are in more skilled professions where the pay levels are higher. On productivity, it is of course an important challenge for the UK, but I would say that one hopeful sign is that the increase in business investment—a key component of GDP—has rapidly increased this year and it can lead to an increase in productivity.

Julian Lewis: Would it not send a very bad signal to President Putin when he is eyeing up the Baltic states if Britain fell below the NATO recommended minimum of 2% of GDP going on defence? Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking not to do that as long as he is in office?

David Cameron: We have set out our plans for this Parliament, and we will have to set out our plans for the years ahead at the next election. As I said, we have maintained a £33 billion defence budget—one of the top five in the world. The most important message for the Baltic states is that they are full members of NATO. I think they are very grateful for that when they see the destabilisation that is taking place in other parts of the world. We need to guarantee to them that being full members of NATO means just that.

John Woodcock: Does the need for these measures signal that the United Kingdom’s budget deficit will take even longer to clear?

David Cameron: We have set out our plans in Budget and autumn statements, we have cut the budget deficit by a third, and we will be setting out the figures later in the month in the normal way.

Martin Horwood: The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change has warned of the terrifying prospect of global warming nearly 5° above pre-industrial levels, which would spell not just catastrophic but irreversible climate change. Will the Prime Minister play his part in ensuring that the third great economic bloc in the world, the European Union, is as committed as the United States and China to sealing a global climate change deal in Paris next year?

David Cameron: To be fair, I think that the European Union has been the leader in all this. We should note what Britain and other European countries are doing in terms of the commitment to reduce carbon emissions, and the fact that we have legal frameworks in place. There has just been an EU agreement on that. I think that we need other countries to come forward and put on the table measures such as those that we have already taken.

Alison McGovern: Immediate action on the Ebola crisis is important. I know that the Prime Minister will join me in thanking the British people for their characteristic generosity, but may I press him
	on the medium and long-term response to the crisis? People need health services, so will he campaign globally for an international goal of universal health coverage?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. As we look for a replacement for the millennium development goals, we should bear it in mind that health provision is key to that. We also need to recognise that the global response to Ebola was too slow. Ebola could have been put on a downward path much earlier if more effective action had been taken more swiftly. While I do not blame the World Health Organisation, I think that we need to look into what immediate resources are available so that we can get stuck into countries where these issues arise, and where there are no health services.

Andrew Robathan: Following the Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine, it is important for the international community to carry a big stick and to be resolute, steadfast and very firm with Russia. It may be necessary to increase the sanctions rather than decreasing them. However, no one in the world wishes to see a new cold war. Is there any way in which my right hon. Friend and the international community can speak softly in pointing out to President Putin and, indeed, to the Russian people that the west is no threat to them, and bring Russia back into a more stable community, perhaps a community of nations? That is where we would all like to be.

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We—Britain and the European Union—do not seek a confrontational relationship with Russia. What we have set up with the EU-Russia discussions and the NATO-Russia Council is a way of having proper discussions and proper relationships with Russia. What has changed is Russian behaviour in Ukraine. I think that if Russia could genuinely do what it says that it wants to do—recognise that Ukraine is a single political space and should be respected, and that it does not want a frozen conflict—and if it could make those pledges real, we could have the relationship of which my right hon. Friend speaks.

Gisela Stuart: The Prime Minister seemed to be confident that the EU-US trade deal would not adversely affect the national health service, but there are some legitimate concerns. Will he be more precise about what has led him to be so certain that that will not happen?

David Cameron: What has led me to be so precise about this is the very clear statement by the EU Commissioner concerned that it is absolutely within our gift to leave parts of the public sector without these arrangements. I think that many people are raising concerns about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership which simply do not apply. I think that we, as elected politicians, should take on the arguments and deal with them one by one. Otherwise we shall face the risk of not receiving the benefits of TTIP, which could lead to growth and jobs in all our countries.

Craig Whittaker: Given that nearly 20% of my working constituents work in manufacturing, and given our low unemployment rate of 1.8%, I think it is safe to say that Calder Valley is
	punching well above its weight in terms of helping the UK economy. How worried need we be about the current slowdown in the world economy?

David Cameron: Our economy is performing well. We have seen growth of 3% this year, a fall in unemployment, the establishment of more businesses, and good business investment figures. However, I think we should be concerned about the situation in the eurozone. According to the most recent statistics, in the third quarter of 2014 Italy’s economy shrank by 0.1%, Germany’s grew by just 0.1%, and the euro area as a whole grew by 0.2%. Those are very soft and worrying figures. We need to see not just the United States growing, but the European Union—which is one of the engines of the world economy—firing up properly.
	Let me return to the issue of TTIP. It is notable that the former EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht said this in a BBC interview:
	“Public services…there is no problem about exemption. The argument is abused in your country for political reasons but it has no grounds.”
	I think it is important that that has been said.

Ian Lucas: If our economy is performing so well, why has the Budget deficit increased by over 10% during the course of the last year?

David Cameron: The Budget deficit has fallen. It has come down by a third since this Government came to office, and we will see the figures at the autumn statement in the normal way, but we should not forget what we inherited, which was a forecast for a Budget deficit at 11% of GDP. That was the highest of any country anywhere in the world. We will not forget that inheritance, and it is one we are dealing with.

John Baron: Is not the danger with the policy of talking loudly but carrying a small stick that it eventually gets found out by the bullies in the playground?

David Cameron: I have great respect for my hon. Friend, but I just do not understand how it can be argued that a top five Defence budget with £33 billion spent is not a big stick. The fact is we have some of the most capable armed forces anywhere in the world, and because of the difficult decisions we have taken we are going to see two new aircraft carriers, the new Type 45 destroyers coming out of our shipyards and the new global combat ship—the frigate. We have already got—based in my constituency—a superb fleet of the A400Ms now coming in to join the Voyager aircraft and all the Hercules we have. We have, of course, the joint strike fighters coming to back up our extraordinary Typhoon force. Britain has a full set of capabilities, including a nuclear deterrent, and I think that is absolutely right, and we should not talk down the scale of military commitment that we have; it is a very important part of our country.

Margaret Ritchie: Given that the Prime Minister announced at the weekend that he wants to put rocket boosters under the TTIP agreement, will he give a clear yes or no answer as to whether, under the agreement, a state or devolved health service could be forced to pay for a private company under the investor state dispute mechanism?

David Cameron: Again, on this issue of investor state dispute mechanisms, we have these in every single trade deal we have ever signed, and I think I am right in saying we have not lost a single case. Of course it is right that we debate all these issues but, as Members of Parliament we sometimes get a barrage of e-mails, that people have signed up to sometimes without fully understanding every part of what they are being asked to sign. People want to spread some fear about this thing, and I think we all have a role, as Members of Parliament, to try to explain properly why these things are good for our country.

Edward Garnier: As so many other economies are either faltering or declining and thus affecting our potential exports, will my right hon. Friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer do all they can further to reduce business taxes in this country?

David Cameron: What we have said is that we want to maintain our ambition to have the lowest rate of business tax of the advanced industrial economies. We have achieved that under this Government through getting corporation tax down to 20% and I think that is a very good calling card for Britain in the world to get people to come and invest here. We have a 20% tax rate, but we do believe that it is important that companies pay their tax, so I think it is both a good advert for Britain, but also in the long term a good way of protecting and raising our revenue.

Fiona O'Donnell: I am sure the Prime Minister agrees that we should judge the success of greater transparency in global taxation by how much it benefits those who need it the most—the poorest countries in the world. He said in his statement that £37 billion of extra tax was being paid by big companies. Can he now tell the House how much of that money has gone to developing countries?

David Cameron: I do not have those figures for the hon. Lady. They were figures produced by the OECD at the meeting, but she is completely right that if all that happens is that the richest countries of the world agree to exchange tax information with each other, that will help us but it will not help the poorest. That is why we have to get into these countries and help them build their tax authorities and their capacity. That is why we have not just proposals but actions like tax inspectors without borders where we actually put the capacity into other countries. I want them to benefit from the good work that is being done.

Cheryl Gillan: Against the background of an uneven and fragile global economic recovery, may I congratulate the Prime Minister on a successful G20? I was particularly pleased to see that the G20 leaders supported the World Bank Group’s infrastructure facility. Will he tell us what role the UK will play following the launch of the G20’s global infrastructure initiative and hub?

David Cameron: I think this hub can matter because an enormous number of huge infrastructure projects need to be built, particularly in the developing world. Those projects could have a transformational effect on those countries’ economies as well as helping
	us with our trade, but they often need pump-priming and guarantees in order to get going because they will not be financed solely by public sector banks or institutions. The hub will bring together the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and regional investment banks such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to try to get those projects going. British companies and British business will benefit from that, which is why I think this is an important part of global growth.

Sheila Gilmore: A lot of people will like what the Prime Minister has said about TTIP and the health service, so what is his objection to incorporating an exemption in the treaty and campaigning with the other countries to ensure that that exemption happens?

David Cameron: As I said, these are all things that can be discussed and looked at. We should not be raising fears that our national health service is somehow going to be invaded when it is not. Let me quote the EU trade commissioner on this:
	“Public services are always exempted—there is no problem about exemption. The argument is abused in your country for political reasons but it has no grounds.”
	That is what was said on 13 September 2014.

Bob Stewart: President Putin has announced large increases in Russia’s armed forces in the past few weeks. As well as protesting about what has happened in Ukraine, did my right hon. Friend ask the G20 NATO members to stress to President Putin that hostile actions against any alliance member would be considered an act of aggression against all 28 members of the Atlantic alliance and possibly, as such, as an act of war, as per the NATO charter?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend knows these things well. President Putin is well aware that the NATO alliance has at its heart a clause on collective self-defence. That measure would be triggered if there were an attack on any NATO member. That is at the heart of our alliance, and it is obviously worth a huge amount to the Baltic states in terms of stability and security. This also shows how right we were to include those states in the NATO alliance.

Frank Roy: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government will donate £650 million to the green climate fund?

David Cameron: We will make funds available in the right way following a pledging conference, but we want to ensure that other countries put down their money. All too often in the past, Britain has put its money in first and wondered why no one else has contributed. I am clear that we want to see other countries stepping up to the plate.

John Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend accept not only that we are facing the threat of a further Russian military invasion of Ukraine but that we are in the middle of an information war?
	Will he consider what more can be done to counter the entirely false depiction of events in Ukraine that is being put out by the Russian media, both inside and outside Russia?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A number of leaders in the Baltic states have said how damaging it is that so much of their television consists of Russian-backed news channels pumping out a completely distorted picture of what is happening. It is vital that we play our part in putting forward correct and accurate information, and I have raised this issue with President Obama.

Diana Johnson: The current and former independent reviewers of counter-terrorism legislation are both calling for the relocation powers to be brought back. In the light of the Prime Minister’s announcement to the Australian Parliament, will he also make an announcement to this Parliament on this matter? Will the relocation powers that his Government scrapped be brought back—yes or no?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady will have to wait for the announcement of the anti-terrorism Bill, which, as I say, will be introduced in this House before the end of the month. But it is notable that the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson, has said:
	“There is no need to put the clock back. The majority of the changes introduced by the TPIMs Act have civilised the control order system without making it less effective.”
	That is important, and I think we should seek to proceed on the basis of consensus.

Richard Drax: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on going to such a rough country without taking four warships with him? In all seriousness, Russia has stepped over a red line and the west is talking about sanctions. How long do we go on talking about sanctions? If they do not work, what does the west then do?

David Cameron: I do not believe that a military escalation is the answer to this problem. I think the answer to this problem is a robust, firm and united response from the countries of the European Union and from the United States to make it absolutely clear that if Russia persists in this destabilisation, its relationship with Europe, with Britain and with America, in terms of trade and normal contact, will be radically different in the future from what it has been in the past. I simply do not think that the idea that this cannot work or cannot have the effect is right; in the end, Russia needs the European Union and America more than America and the European Union need Russia. We need to make that relationship pay, and I think we can, therefore, get the right result.

Andrew Gwynne: As the Member responsible for introducing the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Act 2010, I have a long-standing interest in tackling the vulture funds that prey on historical debts, often those of the poorest countries or countries in severe economic difficulty. Argentina is one of the latest being preyed upon and pursued. Will the Prime Minister set out for the House whether he fully supports
	the principles in the G20 statement on tackling this issue? Does it show a change in the UK’s position on vulture funds, after his Government voted against the United Nations resolution on sovereign debt restructuring earlier this year?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, about which there was a long discussion at the G20. Of course I support what is in the communiqué—we fully agreed that. The problem we have is that there is sympathy for countries such as Argentina, which have tried to restructure their debt but then have vulture funds taking them to court in other countries and winning judgments that make it almost impossible for them to proceed and tip them into another technical default. The right position to take is not to override contract law and the way these things are dealt with in courts, because of course our whole system depends on that, but to try to find a workaround so that countries such as Argentina can get back on a proper footing.

Stephen Phillips: If Ebola is going to be beaten, it will have to be beaten in west Africa. However, two things that provide a disincentive to medical professionals to go and help are the absence of direct flights and the imposition by some countries of quarantine requirements on asymptomatic patients. What discussions did my right hon. Friend have at the G20 with other countries on the re-establishment of direct flights and on quarantine requirements being based only on scientific fact?

David Cameron: My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. On quarantine, we have said that countries should listen very carefully to their chief medical officers and follow medical advice. That is what we are doing here and we advise others to do the same, although, of course, different countries do have slightly different circumstances, because sometimes very long flights are involved. I do not think it is necessary to restore direct flights, for instance, between Britain and these countries. It is necessary for health workers to know that there will be both good facilities in country and medical evacuation available. That is what we have made available to our own health workers, and we are able to offer it to other health workers who take part in the facilities that we are providing.

Andy Sawford: Which Prime Minister showed up for the UK in the negotiations at the G20 on climate change—was it the Prime Minister who told the public that he wanted to hug a husky or the Prime Minister who tells his own right-wing Back Benchers that we ought to cut the “green crap”?

David Cameron: It was the Prime Minister who introduced the world’s first green investment bank, which is now being admired and potentially copied around the world; it was the Prime Minister who supported and helped to put on the table the legislation that made a big difference in this country and that is delivering cuts in carbon emission; and it was the Prime Minister who has restarted the nuclear programme, by going ahead with Hinkley Point C, after 13 years of a Labour Government who talked and talked about nuclear power but never did anything about it.

Julian Smith: One myth about the trade deal with America is that it is a global stitch-up of big corporations. May I urge the Prime Minister to put his rocket boosters under the huge benefits of this deal for small and medium-sized businesses and for consumers?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, big businesses already have strong networks and lobbies in place to break into other markets, but it is the smaller businesses that we need to consider. When they look at whether they can export, they see all the difficulties and all the bureaucracy involved and sometimes decide against it. The transatlantic trade and investment partnership could make a particular difference to such enterprises.

Paul Flynn: In implementing the summit’s call, which said that developments in green energy will support economic growth, will the Prime Minister concentrate not so much on nuclear, which is always billions over budget and years late, but on the vast resources that this country has in wind, wave and tide. All are green, clean and eternal.

David Cameron: I think we should do both. We need a balanced energy policy that draws our energy from many different sources. I am proud of the fact that we have in Britain the largest offshore wind market of any country anywhere in the world. The rate of investment in green technology and green energy has increased under this Government. It is worthwhile looking at the proposals for Swansea, in which the hon. Gentleman takes an interest. There are opportunities in these green technologies, and if they can be made to pay, we should use them.

David Nuttall: Given Australia’s success in controlling immigration, did the Prime Minister pick up any useful tips?

David Cameron: I did discuss that issue with Tony Abbott, but Australia faces a rather different situation. Its focus has been on the problems of people potentially seeking asylum coming quite long distances across the Pacific ocean. Interestingly, if we look at immigration more generally, we see that there is quite a high level of immigration into Australia. Where there is real common ground is that both Britain and Australia can hold their heads high and say that we have created successful multi-racial democracies where people can come, make a home and a contribution and rise to the level that their talents allow.

Andrew Love: Recognising the economic difficulties faced by the euro area as outlined by the Prime Minister, did he take the opportunity to speak to Mrs Merkel and other EU leaders on the matter? In particular, did he raise the possibility of a change of direction as recommended by the International Monetary Fund and other bodies?

David Cameron: There was a good discussion about what is happening in the eurozone. The European Central Bank is independent and cannot be given political direction in any way, but there is a growing global consensus that an active monetary policy is one part of a successful growth policy in the aftermath of a very
	severe crash and financial squeeze. The more widely that becomes understood, the easier it will be for the ECB to act.

Michael Ellis: It has been reported that there is a risk that money given to charities can end up in terrorists’ hands, helping them carry out their threats, some of which have been made clear recently. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the Charity Commission, which is led by the excellent William Shawcross, has the powers and resources that it needs to deal with that problem?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that matter. There is a problem with some organisations using their charitable status to support extremism or the extremist narrative. There are two things we need to do here, which we have been looking at through the extremist taskforce: one is to help organisations that might need to take on lawyers or legal advice to throw extremists out of their organisations; and the second is to ensure that the Charity Commission has the resources and the teeth that it needs, including possibly new legal powers, to take action, too.

Stephen McCabe: If there is another global downturn, will the Prime Minister’s experience lead him to conclude that a fresh round of spending cuts is the best way forward?

David Cameron: One part of responding to these very difficult events is to ensure that one has a clear and sound fiscal policy, and that has involved making reductions in public spending. I think we should make it clear to members of the public that after the next election there will be further reductions in spending and that they need to happen as part of a long-term economic plan. We have started to set out the steps we are going to take, and it is important that we do so because the alternative of simply putting up taxes would destroy the recovery that is now gathering pace.

Robin Walker: I commend the Prime Minister’s leadership on international tax transparency and his earlier answer on the extractives industry transparency initiative. Let me draw his attention to the recent inquiry by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee into the extractive industries, which found that the previous Government’s launch of the EITI but refusal to have Britain sign up to it discouraged many of the developing countries that would have benefited most from signing up. Since he has now reversed that policy and signed the UK up to the EITI, may I recommend that he take up the Select Committee’s recommendation that the UK should become a beacon of best practice and promote it using our soft power around the world?

David Cameron: I will certainly look at that report. I am convinced that it was the right thing to do. It is no good preaching to others about transparency unless we are prepared to put it in place ourselves, which is why I reversed the policy we inherited. Many countries have discovered mineral wealth but found it to be a curse rather than a blessing, and greater transparency
	is one of the key ways of ensuring that some of the poorest people can benefit from the resources their countries have.

William Bain: G20 countries have agreed to set out their post-2020 policies on climate change ahead of next year’s Paris conference on climate change. Does the Prime Minister agree that the UK’s position in leading that conference would be stronger if he adopted a 2030 energy decarbonisation target now?

David Cameron: I do not think that is necessary. We, along with the rest of the European Union, have adopted robust measures to cut carbon, but I believe that the right policy is to cut carbon at the lowest cost. Signing up to a complete decarbonisation target before we know that measures such as carbon capture and storage will work would be the height of irresponsibility, and politicians who propose this, like the hon. Gentleman, need to be honest with the public. If we cannot answer the question about where the cheap energy will come from, total decarbonisation will put money on people’s bills.

Stephen Barclay: Foreign nationals who are major funders of terrorism are on the UK sanctions list, but the House of Commons Library has confirmed that they are not automatically on the UK travel ban list. Is the Prime Minister aware of any individual on the UK sanctions list having travelled to the UK during this Parliament?

David Cameron: I am not aware of any, but I shall have to go away and look carefully at the point my hon. Friend makes. He has been making a series of extremely worthwhile interventions on this subject. For instance, we should ensure that we act consistently with partners at the UN to list and put sanctions on individuals, but the point he makes about ensuring that the people we sanction are also on travel bans is very good, and I will look into it and write to him.

Mark Durkan: Further to the Prime Minister’s point about the progress on corporate tax avoidance, he can acknowledge that many poor countries are unable to sign up for automatic exchange of information. Will his Government consider offering bilateral pilots to some of those countries, and will they also do a spill-over analysis, as requested by the OECD and carried out by the Irish and Dutch Governments, of the implications of the tax regime here for those poor countries? Would such an analysis consider the controlled foreign companies rules put in place by this Government, which are taking money away from poor Exchequers?

David Cameron: Where I would seek common cause with the hon. Gentleman is on the idea that poorer countries are often unable to take part in the tax exchange because they do not have the capacity to process the information and use it to raise funds. That is why initiatives such as tax inspectors without borders and putting resources into these countries to help with their tax regimes are important. I do not agree that what we have done to attract foreign companies is irresponsible. We charge our taxes properly, and it is good that some practices that were—let me put it this way—questionable,
	such as the so-called double Irish scheme, have been taken away. Low tax rates and the proper application of those tax rates are the prize we should be looking for.

Andrew Jones: The easiest way for people to travel to or from our country to participate in terrorism is obviously by plane, so will my right hon. Friend explain what penalties airlines would face if they failed to comply with our measures, such as no-fly lists, which play a key role in keeping our country safe?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The main penalty that airlines will face if they do not comply with no-fly lists, or with the screening and security measures that we insist on, is not being able to fly to the UK. It is not a series of fines that we are looking at, but a prohibition on their flights unless they meet these tougher criteria.

David Rutley: What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the UK’s readiness to face possible future international economic instability? How does it compare with the situation in 2008?

David Cameron: The point I would make is that to cope with instability, a country needs a long-term plan to get its deficit under control, and to live within its means. That is absolutely vital, and that is why the work that we have been doing for the last four and a half years, and will continue to do in the future, is so important.

Henry Smith: In the past, I have fortunately been granted an Adjournment debate on G20 membership, in which I questioned the validity of Argentina’s membership of the organisation under the Kirchner regime. Did the Argentine representation at the Brisbane conference make any approaches to other members of the G20, or to the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank, for funding?

David Cameron: In terms of Argentine representation, Mrs Kirchner, the President, was not there because she is recovering from an operation. Argentina was represented
	by its Finance Minister. The only real discussion that Argentina proposed at the G20 was on the issue of vulture funds, the fact that decisions in US courts have triggered a technical default in Argentina, and its problems with these funds. That was the issue under discussion.

Philip Hollobone: ISIS is opposed to our way of life and hates everything that Britain stands for. Given that British jihadists are aiding and abetting the Queen’s enemies in Syria and Iraq, and that we have the appalling scenario of a British citizen beheading other British citizens and the citizens of our allies on international television, is it not time that we recognised that this is worse than murder or terrorism, and that British jihadists should be prosecuted for treason?

David Cameron: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend: that sight, and the fact that people who were born, brought up, and educated in our country have been radicalised in this way and are murdering other British citizens in the deserts of Syria, makes me sick to the stomach. It is absolutely appalling that this is happening. It is not only the full force of the law that these people should face; they should also recognise that when they take up arms in this way in another country, they become enemies of the state. With our allies, we should do everything that we can to stop them carrying out their barbarity.

Peter Bone: I would like to thank the Prime Minister on behalf of the whole House, I am sure, for coming to update us. He must be a bit tired. I understand that President Putin, on the other hand, decided to leave the summit early on the grounds that he was tired and needed to catch up on his beauty sleep. Others say that he left because the Prime Minister stood up to him, and that, like most bullies, he ran away. Was President Putin looking tired at the summit?

David Cameron: I am not aware of exactly why President Putin left early, or what the circumstances were. My experience of these international meetings is that it is very important to stay right until the end, in case something gets agreed that you do not agree with.

Avian Influenza

Elizabeth Truss: The chief veterinary officer has confirmed a case of avian flu at a duck breeding farm in East Yorkshire. We have taken immediate and robust action to control this outbreak and to prevent any potential spread of infection. My Department, which is responsible for animal and plant health, is working closely with Public Health England. which is responsible for human health, and the Food Standards Agency, which is responsible for food safety.
	The Animal and Plant Health Agency laboratory at Weybridge—an internationally recognised avian influenza reference laboratory—has analysed samples from the farm and identified the presence of highly pathogenic H5 avian flu. They have ruled out H5N1, the virus that can cause severe disease in people who are infected through close contact with infected birds. Further tests are being run to identify the exact strain of the disease. Importantly, the chief medical officer and Public Health England have confirmed that the risk to public health is very low.
	It is important to note that this disease is highly pathogenic for birds, but the Food Standards Agency has advised that avian flu does not pose a food safety risk. Protecting animal health is one of the top priorities for my Department and we have extensive and rigorous processes to identify and tackle disease outbreaks. As part of this approach I chair a monthly biosecurity meeting and have reinforced the importance of monitoring and planning for likely risk.
	We have tried and tested procedures for dealing with such outbreaks and our experts immediately responded when suspicions of disease emerged. I would like to take a moment to update the House on the sequence of events over recent days and the steps we are taking. A possible case of a notifiable disease on the farm was reported by a private vet on the morning of Friday 14 November. A Government vet visited the premises that day and submitted samples to the Weybridge laboratory, and the premises were immediately placed under restriction.
	A series of tests was undertaken during the weekend and testing confirmed the presence of notifiable H5 avian flu on Saturday evening. Further tests ruled out H5N1. As the test results were confirmed, the chief veterinary officer, Nigel Gibbens, called an amber emergency meeting to assess the situation, and as a result declared a disease outbreak. At that point the national disease control centre was established and the full operational response was initiated, including informing the public and notifying key industry bodies.
	At the same time a 10 km restriction zone was imposed around the farm. This zone bans movements of all unlicensed poultry and products within the area. Bird gatherings such as shows and exhibitions are banned and game birds cannot be released. The 6,000 ducks on the farm where the disease has been identified are to be culled. Investigations are ongoing to discover the origin of the outbreak, including whether it is linked to recent cases found in the Netherlands and Germany. This is detailed work to ensure we have identified all possible sources of the outbreak. It is essential that anyone
	keeping poultry practises good biosecurity, is vigilant for any signs of disease and seeks prompt advice from their vet.
	We are never complacent about such an important issue, and we have a strong track record of controlling and eliminating outbreaks of avian flu in the UK. We are working closely with operational partners, devolved Administration colleagues and the industry to deal effectively with this outbreak. I will keep the House updated on further developments. I commend this statement to the House.

Maria Eagle: I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of her statement and, in particular, for the briefing I received from her officials this morning. She is right to bring the matter to the House at the earliest opportunity, and I commend her for doing so.
	Avian flu is a serious contagious viral disease in animals with a potential for some strains to infect humans, with all the health implications of that. Fortunately, human infection is rare, and, thankfully, the Government have already confirmed that the strain of avian flu discovered in ducks on Nafferton farm in Yorkshire is not H5N1, which is one of the strains that impacts humans, though it is believed to be an H5 strain.
	When is it likely that the Department will be able to confirm definitively what strain we are dealing with? The Secretary of State will know that outbreaks of H5N8 have been confirmed in Germany and Holland during the past two weeks. There may be some connection between these outbreaks, so what steps is she taking to ensure full co-operation between the veterinary authorities dealing with the outbreaks there, particularly if, in due course, it is confirmed that the outbreak she is dealing with is of the same serotype?
	I understand that the authorities in the Netherlands have introduced a three-day nationwide ban on the transportation of poultry and eggs, yet, as I understand it from what the Secretary of State said, even in the 10 km restriction zone in place around the affected farm in Yorkshire, the measure she has announced bans movement of unlicensed poultry and products. Is she therefore allowing the movement of licensed poultry and poultry products? Will she give us a bit more information about what is and is not allowed within the zone? How sure is she that any potentially infected poultry has not been, and will not be, moved out of the zone prior to inspections, and that it will not enter the human food chain? What steps has she taken to ensure that there is no human exposure to the virus on Nafferton farm itself, either among farm staff or among the staff being sent to deal with the outbreak?
	The Secretary of State does not yet quite know what the source of the outbreak is. Would not this information impact on what measures ought to be taken to contain it, and should she not therefore operate on the precautionary principle until she is clear what the strain is? There is clearly a possibility that the source is wild birds—a Royal Society for the Protection of Birds reserve is nearby. What steps is she taking to initiate sampling of wild bird populations? What is she doing to ensure that landowners and members of the public watch out for signs of the disease in such populations?
	The Secretary of State said that the birds on the farm are to be culled, but this has not happened yet. When is it to be done? For how long does she expect the restrictions she has announced to be in place if the outbreak is confined to just one farm? What is she doing to get information out to members of the public who keep a few chickens or ducks within the affected areas?
	At this important time for the industry, and for consumers, what is her advice to consumers considering ordering their Christmas birds, whether ducks, geese or turkeys? We have heard that the FSA has been clear about this, but what is the Secretary of State’s advice? Does she expect trade impacts on exports to the European Union and around the world? What steps is her Department taking to help industry to deal with any concerns? We know from recent history that long and complex supply chains have the ability to accelerate the spread of food problems across international borders before being identified and tackled, so what assurance can she give to UK consumers that contaminated poultry and poultry products did not enter the European supply chain before this latest outbreak was identified?
	Finally, can the Secretary of State assure us that she has all the necessary resources to prevent the spread of this disease, including the surveillance of wild birds and the testing, monitoring and culling of infected birds, and to enable any necessary communication with the industry and the wider public?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank the hon. Lady for her response. I am sure she will agree that very swift action has already been taken from the time of the original notification on Friday. We have already seen the testing taking place and the imposition of the restriction zone within which no movements are allowed.
	On the hon. Lady’s specific question, people will be able to do that only if they are issued with a specific licence, and that will follow testing. We have set up a national control centre to deal with this disease. A local operation will be run out of Beverley to make sure that appropriate resources are put in place for surveillance in the local area.
	We are taking this extremely seriously. One of my priorities as Secretary of State is to make sure that we are protected from animal and plant disease. One of the things we have done since 2010 is to protect the number of veterinary staff within our organisations to make sure that we have the resources to deal with disease outbreaks such as this. We have a good record, but we cannot be complacent. That is why earlier this year the Government released a new strategy on dealing with biosecurity risks and notifiable diseases.
	The hon. Lady asked a number of questions. First, let us be clear that the Food Standards Agency has said that this does not pose a risk to food safety for UK consumers. That is a very important point. The chicken and turkey that people eat continues to be safe. This is a live animal disease. It is very important that we take steps to deal with it as soon as we are able, and that is what we have done. It poses a risk to the bird population, but it is an animal disease, not a human disease. I want to make that point very clearly.
	The hon. Lady asked about protection for people working in farms in the area. As regards the risk to human health, we have put in place protections for the
	people on the farm that has been affected, and other local farms also have those protections in place. However, as I have said, the risk to human health is very low. That view has been supported not just by Public Health England but by the chief medical officer.
	We are working with our European counterparts. Our organisation, APHA—the Animal and Plant Health Agency—is closely co-operating with those in the Netherlands and Germany to make sure that we are fully updated on what is happening.
	We are at the early stages of examining what strain this is. We have ruled out H5N1 but we are looking closely at what strain it is. That is the work of the chief veterinary officer and we will know more in the coming days. Detailed work needs to be done so we are continuing to do that.
	We have seen a good co-ordinated effort from all kinds of organisations, including the industry, the National Farmers Union, the police and the Animal and Plant Health Agency, and we need to keep that up to make sure we stamp out this disease. All the experience of animal disease shows that it is important to take early and swift action and make sure it is stamped out.

Greg Knight: I am sure the whole House is grateful to the Minister for making this statement today. Will she confirm that resources will not be an issue, and that whatever needs to be done will be done to eradicate this outbreak? Does she agree that in due course there should be a review of what has happened so that lessons can be learned? Will she look at the question of compensation for those whose businesses have been adversely affected? For the present, will she confirm that no holidaymaker intending to come to the East Riding need change their plans, and that East Yorkshire remains open for business?

Elizabeth Truss: I can assure my right hon. Friend that East Yorkshire is most definitely open for business. The restrictions that we have put in place are specifically on the poultry industry. Compensation will be paid to farmers. We will do that in a robust fashion that is properly audited, learning lessons from previous disease outbreaks. My right hon. Friend is right that it is important that we see the value to the wider £210 billion rural economy. Food and farming are important, which is why we are dealing with this disease outbreak as quickly and as effectively as possible, but we must also see the wider benefits to the rural economy.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. She referred to work with operational partners and devolved Administrations. Will she outline the nature of those discussions with devolved Administrations, particularly the Northern Ireland Executive, so that the local poultry industry in Northern Ireland can be protected and public health safeguarded?

Elizabeth Truss: I can assure the hon. Lady that we had a meeting today, which was part of our national disease control meetings, in which the Northern Ireland Executive was involved, as were the relevant authorities from Scotland and Wales. It is very important that we communicate properly with the devolved Administrations, and that is what we are doing, so they are fully involved in all our operations.

Graham Stuart: Many of my constituents work in egg production and poultry. Earlier today I was contacted by Elliott Eggs of Bewholme just outside the exclusion zone, which is already struggling to meet the supply demands of its supermarket customers. How will my right hon. Friend strike the balance between effective eradication of the problem and continued production, particularly in this festive season?

Elizabeth Truss: As my hon. Friend points out, the poultry and egg industry is a vital part of our food and farming sector, which contributes £100 billion to the economy. My answer to him is that the best way for us to do that is to deal with this as swiftly as possible and make sure that we eradicate the disease. That is why we have taken swift action. As I mentioned, the disease was notified to us on Friday. On that day Government vets visited the farm and an immediate restriction was placed on the farm. As soon as the analysis came back from the tests, the chief veterinary officer placed a restriction on a 10 km zone, so we are taking swift action to deal with the problem as soon as possible. All the previous disease outbreaks have shown that rapid, concerted, robust action needs to be taken.

Mary Glindon: The Secretary of State has said that the risk to public health is very low, but what discussions has she had with the Secretary of State for Health regarding the avian flu outbreak and this year’s winter flu jab campaign?

Elizabeth Truss: The chief veterinary officer and the chief medical officer have been working together very closely since the disease was identified. The chief medical officer and Public Health England have said that, based on the evidence they have received from the tests, there is a very low risk to public health. We will continue to work with those organisations.

David Heath: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the swift, proportionate and comprehensive action she has taken, but warn again that the resilience and capacity of our animal health precautions must be protected against future depredation by the Treasury. Will my right hon. Friend look again at how she can get the message across to the backyard poultry keepers, who are the most difficult to reach—they do not read the trade newspapers or have veterinary supervision at all times—about the symptoms they should be looking for in their birds so that they can report them?

Elizabeth Truss: First, I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of animal and plant health. That is one of my key priorities as Secretary of State. As I have said, we have protected the number of vets in our organisation, despite the fact that we have had to make savings across the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs since 2010. As soon as we imposed the restriction zone, we put out the message in the media, as well as through many organisations such as the National Farmers Union and veterinary organisations. We want to get the message across to those members of the public who keep poultry that biosecurity measures are very important and that if they have any concerns they should speak to their vet.

Andy Sawford: The Corby and east Northamptonshire food industry and farming industry, which is very significant, will be very concerned about the effects of this announcement on their already fragile industries, in the wake of events in recent years. On resources, the best thing to do is to focus tightly on the farm in question, as the Secretary of State has said. On the transportation of the carcases—she indicated that that will happen in 10 days’ time—will real precautions be taken regarding escorts and ensuring that the transportation is safe?

Elizabeth Truss: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are taking a very close interest in what is happening in the local area. That is why we have put in place an operating base in Beverley, very close to the local area, so that we can make sure that we deal with any issues there. The hon. Gentleman also makes a good point about the transportation of any culled ducks. We will make sure that they are properly protected so that we can dispose of them safely.

Anne McIntosh: Bearing in mind that Yorkshire is one of the largest and most intensive poultry producers, may I commend my right hon. Friend, the veterinary service and, indeed, the responsible producers on the action they have taken? Mindful of the fact that the chief veterinary officer is on record as saying that the British case may be linked to European outbreaks or, alternatively, that it may be found in migratory birds, will the Secretary of State make it a top priority of all the services to find out the source of the infection? Will she also send out a clear message that British poultry is still safe to eat after the bird has been cooked and that, on biosecurity and those trying to cover the story, it is absolutely essential that those trying to contain this very infectious disease are given the right of access?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that poultry is safe to eat. The Food Standards Agency has confirmed that avian flu does not pose a food safety risk for UK consumers. We are very clear about that message. My hon. Friend is also right to say that Yorkshire is a key county for food production. I recently visited Yorkshire to see many of the different aspects of food production there. We will make sure that people get the message about biosecurity so that we can ensure that proper protection is in place. Swift action is the most important aspect.

Jim Cunningham: What contingency plans does the Secretary of State have with regard to any threats to jobs in the supply chain?

Elizabeth Truss: The most immediate thing that we are focusing on—bear in mind that we were initially notified about the issue on Friday—is trying to nip the disease in the bud to make sure that it has the minimum possible impact. That is why it is important to take very urgent action.

David Davis: From what the Secretary of State says, the responses of the farmer, the vet and the agencies were exemplary in both their swiftness and decisiveness. The suggestion that this outbreak has come from wild bird infection
	reminds us that east Yorkshire is part of a migratory network, as is much of the rest of the United Kingdom. What will she do to ensure that there is clear surveillance of areas subject to bird migration so that this cannot happen again?

Elizabeth Truss: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the possibilities that the chief veterinary officer is exploring. He is meeting the ornithological expert panel to look specifically at the migratory patterns of wild birds, which might be one of the factors. It is still early days, and we do not fully know the cause. His job is to investigate that, and he is working very hard on it.

Andrew Jones: Industry support and vigilance will be key to any success in implementing the restrictions, so what discussions is the Secretary of State’s Department having with trade bodies such as the NFU, the British Egg Industry Council or the British Poultry Council?

Elizabeth Truss: The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who has responsibility for farming, has spoken to the British Poultry Council and the British Egg Industry Council, and I have spoken to the NFU. Those organisations are represented in our national disease control centre to ensure full industry inclusion in what we are doing and to ensure we can get our messages across properly.

Julian Sturdy: We are entering a very important time of the year for the poultry industry. What will the Secretary of State continue to do with her DEFRA colleagues to get out the strong message that although we have to tackle the outbreak head-on, poultry and eggs are still perfectly safe to eat? We still have the best animal welfare in this country, and such strong animal welfare will help us in tackling this disease.

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this outbreak does not pose a food safety risk for UK consumers. The Food Standards Agency has been absolutely clear about that. We have very high welfare standards in this country, and we have a successful, competitive poultry industry. We are being very open and taking firm and decisive action so that we can stamp the disease out in the early stages.

Roger Williams: I congratulate the Secretary of State and DEFRA on maintaining the reference laboratory at Weybridge, which meant that she could very rapidly rule out the possibility that the H5N1 strain was responsible. What role will Weybridge continue to play in a worldwide observatory on this important disease? Knowing where each strain is active may help in fighting the disease in future.

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that our facilities at Weybridge are world class. We have world-class experts on avian influenza, which is very important in being able to deal with this disease. They are discussing the outbreak with their counterparts in other countries, because there have been outbreaks elsewhere. At this stage, we do not know what the
	connection is with the outbreak in east Yorkshire. He is absolutely right that that vital facility is an important part of our armoury in dealing with animal disease.

Julian Smith: The vet who turned up to the farm on Friday was clearly on the ball, and dealt with this outbreak efficiently and quickly. What more can we and the Department do to help the veterinary profession to ensure that everyone who goes out to farms is looking out for the symptoms of this disease?

Elizabeth Truss: The chief veterinary officer has been very active in working with the veterinary profession and the British Veterinary Association to make sure that we get such messages across. A lot of information is available on our gov.uk website for people to access. Getting the message across is very important, and vets have a very important role to play.

Craig Whittaker: Calder Valley has many smallholdings, as the Secretary of State knows. What advice would she give to smallholders about who would be the first point of contact if they suspect a problem in the coming weeks?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is right: there are many smallholders, not just in Calder Valley but right across the country, and if people have concerns or suspicions, they should speak to their vet. That is the best course of action.

Michael Crockart: While public health is rightly uppermost in our minds at the moment, this is, as my right hon. Friend has said, a live poultry disease. Live poultry exports are worth a significant proportion of the £3.3 billion that poultry generates for UK GDP. Has she made any further progress in including the concept of compartmentalisation and export health certificates, and negotiated with our export markets to protect this valuable industry?

Elizabeth Truss: The most important thing we can do to protect exports is ensure that we deal with the disease as swiftly and robustly as possible. That is what will help protect our export markets, which, as my hon. Friend rightly says, are very important—indeed, we are looking to expand them.

Cheryl Gillan: May I also congratulate the Secretary of State and her team on taking swift and decisive action in what is potentially a difficult situation? This is the busiest season, and in Chesham and Amersham there are some marvellous Aylesbury duck breeders who also produce excellent turkeys for the Christmas season. Can the Secretary of State assure me that she will put out regular bulletins and information—perhaps even send them to Members who have raised questions in the House—so that we can get those across to our constituents? Will she do absolutely everything to maintain consumer confidence at this critical time for many businesses across the country?

Elizabeth Truss: We are working closely with the Department of Health, which is represented in the Chamber this afternoon, as well as with the Food Standards Agency and Public Health England, to get the message
	across to consumers that there is no food safety risk to British poultry. My right hon. Friend is right to say that this industry is important. That is why it is important to be open about the disease and the way we are dealing with it, and to take swift, effective action.

Matthew Offord: Given the proximity of the wild bird sanctuary to the area of contamination, does the Secretary of State feel that the exclusion zone of six miles is enough?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for the question about the exclusion zone. Earlier this year our Department set out a biosecurity strategy on notifiable diseases, and the 10 km exclusion zone was deemed to be a reasonable level to deliver the right amount of protection. The chief veterinary officer will be carrying out further work and investigating how the disease emerged, and following that work he will continue to work on our policy.

Bob Stewart: Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), may I ask the Secretary of State whether local birds such as robins, sparrows, thrushes and blackbirds could carry avian flu away from the area?

Elizabeth Truss: The chief veterinary officer has been clear that we do not know the precise causes of the disease and where it has emerged from, and we will be undertaking that work over the coming weeks.

Philip Hollobone: I understand from the statement that this case was found on a duck-breeding farm. Do we know whether it was a duck or ducks that were affected, as opposed to some other form of poultry? As the Secretary of State addresses the House, is it the case that no recorded cases of avian flu in either a chicken or a turkey have been presented to her?

Elizabeth Truss: My understanding and the advice I have received from the chief veterinary officer is that only ducks were affected in this case.

Points of Order

Margot James: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Labour MP to have joked about appalling death threats made against a female MP on Remembrance Sunday? Would it be in order for that colleague to come to the House immediately and apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and also to the Minister for Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey)?

Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that the hon. Lady will have notified the hon. Member to whom she is referring. As she knows—difficult as it is to chair the Chamber—the Chair is not responsible for what Members say outside this place or for interpreting the spirit in which any comment may have been made. For that I am grateful, given the point that the hon. Lady has made.

John McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I have not finished, Mr McDonnell.
	I was going to suggest that perhaps such matters are better sorted out between Members over a cup of tea, but I understand that we now have another point of order. I hope that your point of order is further to this point of order, Mr McDonnell.

John McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I thank the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) for notifying me that she intended to raise this matter today? I thank her for raising it as it allows me the opportunity to put the matter straight. Various allegations have been made. Let me make it clear: I have never called for any harm to be done to any Member of this House or anyone else. I have reported statements that were made at a public meeting in the Wirral constituency. I did not agree with them, but I reported them.
	I have no doubt that the hon. Lady is sincere in this, but she should be aware that what we witnessed last week was a choreographed exercise between the Daily Mail and Conservative central office to take a remark I made on the Sunday and publish it on the Thursday in order to detract from the speech made by the leader of the Labour party. If the hon. Lady is concerned, as I am, about women’s issues, she should join me in voting against the closure of women’s refuges and the charges—[Interruption.]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I think that proves my point. Remarks made outside the Chamber should be settled between Members: it is not a matter for this House—

John McDonnell: Further to that point of order—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I have not finished speaking yet, Mr McDonnell. As far as I am concerned, that closes the matter. The two Members should sort it out themselves: it is not a matter for me.

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just want to say that I am happy with the recommendation to have a cup of tea.

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman has made an offer, but whether the hon. Lady wants to take it up must be between them. We must move on because it is not for the Chair to referee between Members outside the Chamber.

Childcare Payments Bill

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Proposals relating to three and four year olds

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall within three months of this Act coming into force lay a report before the House of Commons setting out—
	(a) an assessment of the benefits of top-up payments to people responsible for a child or children aged three to four years since the Act came into force; and
	(b) an assessment of those benefits in addition to the likely benefits of funding 25 hours per week free childcare for working persons responsible for a child or children aged three and four.”—(Catherine McKinnell.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Catherine McKinnell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 2 in clause 1,page2,line4, at end insert—
	‘( ) The amount of the top-up payment is 66.66 per cent. of the amount of the qualifying payment where the qualifying child is a disabled child.”
	Amendment 1 in clause 14,page8,line42, at end add—
	‘(3) A child is a qualifying child for the purposes of the Act until the last day of the week in which falls on the 1 September following the child’s eleventh birthday (or eighteenth birthday in the case of a disabled child).”

Catherine McKinnell: New clause 1 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), whom I wish to congratulate on her new role. It calls on the Government to consider the necessary help that hundreds of thousands of parents of three to four-year-olds need now to cover the ever-rising costs of child care.
	Before I elaborate on the new clause further, I wish to reiterate a point that the Opposition have stressed throughout proceedings on the Bill. We welcome any new investment in child care and, in particular, any extra support for hard-pressed parents and families up and down the country who are struggling to juggle work and family life. It is worth remembering because, after all, we are the party which, in government, pioneered investment in early years. The principle that every child matters was at the centre of the Labour Government’s work across all Departments. We are the party that, in government, made no apology for focusing our efforts on, and redirecting any available support to, the children and families who needed our help the most. We are the party that, in government, made it its business to tackle disadvantage and to improve the life chances of every single child from the earliest possible age to give them the best possible start in life.

Andy Sawford: I agree with the case my hon. Friend is making. Does she share my concern about the closure across the country of Sure Start centres, which were a key part of that commitment to support children and families, including the Raunds Sure Start centre in my constituency, which the Tory county council is now going to close?

Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend makes a very valuable point and I was just about to come to that. We are the party of Sure Start and the thousands of Sure Start centres that existed in 2010. It is not specifically relevant to this debate, but we could not allow it to pass without mentioning the very deep concern up and down the country about the future of our Sure Start centres.
	There are concerns, which were made abundantly clear by a number of witnesses in Committee last month, that the Bill does not go anywhere near far enough to provide the support that thousands of parents and families desperately need right now. They need that support now, not in 12 months’ time, which is why we tabled new clause 1. Based on the Family and Childcare Trust’s annual survey, we know that child care costs have risen five times faster than wages since 2010, at a time when wages have lagged behind prices, leaving people £1,600 a year worse off on average. This support is even more vital when we see how much parents have lost out as a result of the Government’s choices: the decisions to cut tax credits, child benefit and maternity pay, and to close thousands of Sure Start centres.
	As we saw and read in the news yesterday, research from the London School of Economics and the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the university of Essex shows clearly how the burden of austerity under this Government has fallen most heavily on those with lower incomes. The research found that the Government’s tax and benefit changes have seen the poorest lose about 3% of their incomes, while the richest half of the country have actually seen their incomes increase by 1% to 2%. That blows away the Government’s claims from the start that we are somehow all in this together. The research highlighted the fact that families with children have fared worst of all, which confirms our worst fears. Single parent families, in particular, have lost far more through cuts to tax credits and other support than they may have gained through any tax changes, proving that the Government have given with one hand but taken away far more with the other—so much for being the most family-friendly country. Families have lost out on up to £1,500 a year due to changes to tax credits alone. Tax credits are a vital part of income for many working parents, especially those on the most modest incomes.
	When we look at all the tax and benefit changes since 2010, including the Government’s much lauded and touted personal allowance increases, we see that families have clearly been hit hardest of all, and that will remain the case right up to the general election. A family with both parents in work will be about £2,073 a year worse off and a family with a single parent in work will be about £1,300 a year worse off. Despite the Conservatives’ claim of creating the most family-friendly country and the Liberal Democrats’ supposed belief that families should get the support they need to thrive, the Government have not been family friendly and they have not stepped in to provide families with the help they so desperately need to get to grips with the soaring costs of child care.
	Far from stepping in, they have pulled the rug from under the feet of many families. Any extra help for parents struggling with the cost of child care is clearly to be welcomed. However, not only is the Bill too little too late for hundreds of thousands of families, we are disappointed that the Government have so far refused to consider that additional support could be offered to families right now. That is why we have tabled new clause 1.

Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that we can see the Government’s attitude to child care with their closure of more than 400 Sure Start centres?

Catherine McKinnell: Up and down the country, there is deep concern about the disappearing Sure Start services. We know that the worst is yet to come when we look at the dire straits in which many local authorities find themselves and the difficult decisions that many are having to make about their Sure Start services. My hon. Friend makes a very good point: that does sum up the Government’s attitude to support for children and families. They simply wash their hands of the issue whenever it is raised in this House.
	We tabled new clause 1 because we want to compel the Government to explore the effectiveness of extending the free entitlement for three and four-year-olds when both parents are in work. The first part of new clause 1 seeks to understand what support the current proposals will provide to the parents who need it most. The free entitlement introduced under the Labour Government, which happily has been continued under this Government, makes a real difference to hard-pressed families. The simple truth is that, months after the Bill was first published and introduced, we are still none the wiser about exactly how many parents will be better off as a result of the top-up payments, or, crucially, by how much.
	That stands in marked contrast to our plans to extend the free entitlement for three and four-year-olds, which will be worth £40 a week, or £1,500 a year, to about half a million children. We know from the Government’s impact assessment that of those families who will be newly eligible for support under the Bill—those who are self-employed, or those whose employers do not currently offer employer supported childcare vouchers—the average benefit will be about £600 a year. Clearly, that is far lower than the £2,000 per child that the Government have been touting ever since they announced the policy for top-up payments in March.
	It is worth remembering that some 520,000 families currently benefit from ESC vouchers. The Government’s impact assessment sets out a number of case studies where families might be better off or, indeed, worse off under the new top-up payments. The impact assessment suggests that families can retain their ESC vouchers if they wish, but goes on to list a whole range of caveats relating to whether parents will be able to continue to qualify, whether they would be better off remaining under the current voucher scheme, or whether the new top-up scheme might be better for them.
	Clauses 62 and 63 seek to wind down the ESC scheme over the next few years, closing it to new entrants. Presumably, ESC vouchers will eventually vanish completely. If a parent changes jobs or if their employer stops offering vouchers—this could well happen, as voucher
	providers are set to see the majority of their business disappear—they will have no choice but to switch to top-up payments, leaving many worse off.
	We heard evidence from a wide range of witnesses in Committee last month who cited the Resolution Foundation’s work. It is worrying that the Resolution Foundation had to undertake that work because the Government have not done sufficient work to look at the true impact on parents. The Resolution Foundation suggests that 80% of the families who will benefit from top-up payments are in the top 40% of income distribution. The remaining 20% will go to those in the middle of the distribution scale. If the key aims of the Bill are to support parents with the cost of child care and to help more parents back into work by making work an economically viable option, those figures raise questions about whether its aims are achievable through this Government scheme alone. In contrast, many child care experts agree that Labour’s child care plans, as outlined in new clause 1, meet these twin aims.
	In a follow-up to one of our Committee sittings, the Minister made a worrying admission. In a letter to Committee members, she revealed that on her Department’s estimation almost 10% of eligible families—about 170,000 families—did not have access to the internet and therefore, effectively, might not have access to the top-up payments. The Bill requires that parents hold online child care accounts to receive the Government top-up payments. It is proposed that these would be administered by NS&I, with back office functions provided by Atos. It now transpires, however, that about 170,000 families might be excluded from these top-up payments simply because they do not have access to the internet. That is another reason why the Government should support new clause 1 and our proposals to extend the free entitlement, which would not have any of these implications or complications for parents.
	In response, the Government plan to make exceptions for certain people, such as those with a disability or those who live in remote areas and have poor internet connectivity, but the point still stands: if someone does not have a computer or internet-enabled device, either because they cannot afford one or because they choose not to have one, it could essentially exclude them from the top-up payments and child care support. I hope that the Minister will respond to that issue, which I am sure even she would agree is hugely concerning.
	Putting aside the question of who will benefit, our other concern—and another reason why we will be pressing new clause 1 to a vote—is whether the Government scheme will be as valuable to parents in a few years as when it is introduced. Our new clause 1 suggests extending free entitlement for three to four-year-olds whose parents are both in work and is a supply-led form of support that experts agree would neither have the same implications for child care prices nor potentially expose parents to artificial inflation—a concern about the Bill that has been expressed repeatedly. We have heard from a wide variety of witnesses that the potential benefits of the scheme could be wiped out by future increases in child care costs, which we know have already risen by 30% in the past four years and will continue to rise and outstrip the value of the support.
	The Institute for Public Policy Research and the Resolution Foundation have pointed to Australia and highlighted that demand-led subsidies, such as top-up payments, on their own, with no additional safeguards in place, only lead to even greater child care price inflation and pressure on hard-pressed parents’ budgets. Our new clause calls on the Government to consider a supply-led measure—extending the provision for three to four-year-olds—that is not so susceptible to the risk of price inflation. The Government have so far dismissed the widely expressed and legitimate concerns about the impact of the Bill on future child care prices. I hope the Minister can respond to these concerns, as expressed in new clause 1, as well as new clause 2, which we will come to later.
	The third point I want to make concerns perhaps the most striking thing we took away from the evidence sessions last month and our line-by-line scrutiny sessions: the potential nightmare of complexity and confusion that parents might face following the introduction of top-up payments. The Bill proposes an entirely new mechanism for administering support for parents. By contrast, the measures in new clause 1 would simply extend an existing scheme—three to four-year-olds are already entitled to 15 hours of free child care—by providing an additional 10 hours where both parents are in work.
	Widespread concerns have been raised that the Bill might add complexity and confusion when parents come to access child care support and have to decide whether to remain within the voucher scheme or switch to the top-up scheme. In particular, it might create additional confusion for parents on lower incomes who might not be in a position to make an active choice between schemes, but instead might have to move between schemes as their incomes fluctuate—as they move between being eligible for tax credits and universal credit support and losing that eligibility as they move into higher-paid work. We discussed those issues at length in Committee, but so far Ministers have failed to address them. For that reason, our new clause 1 seeks an alternative, additional support and cushion for vulnerable parents on the borderline between universal credit and the top-up payment scheme.
	We know that there are plans to develop an online “better off” calculator, similar to the tax credit calculator, to aid parents in making these decisions, but if Ministers cannot tell hon. Members who will benefit from which scheme and by how much—depending on their income and circumstances—how do they propose to convey these messages to parents simply and effectively? How will parents be able to make a straightforward decision? So far, Ministers have been unable to answer these questions. Given that child care is vital for so many people who are in work, looking for work or looking to increase their hours, we need to know exactly how much support this scheme will provide for parents struggling with child care.
	It is no use promising parents that the Government will provide thousands of pounds of support when in reality they will get much less; it is no good offering support to parents when the scheme comes into operation if in a short time that help will be worth far less; and it is no good dreaming up an entire new mechanism of child care support if it only makes parents’ lives more complicated —or, worse still, is prone to errors and failure. Furthermore, the scheme is untested and potentially costly. The figures have already been significantly revised, raising concerns about whether they have been properly calculated.
	For those reasons, we have tabled new clause 1. Given the numerous concerns expressed about the Government’s top-up scheme, we urge Ministers to give proper consideration to an additional, alternative plan—one that we know works and will make a big difference to 500,000 working families with three to four-year-olds: the plan to extend Labour’s free entitlement for three to four-year-olds from 15 hours to 25 hours a week for 38 weeks a year. We know that it would be worth £1,500 per year per child; that the funding would go directly to child care providers and therefore would not leave parents so exposed to inflated child care prices; and that it would be simple and straightforward to administer and implement for both parents and the Government; and we know how it would be funded—through an increase in the bank levy, which has returned so much less than the Government said it would.
	The free early education entitlement for three to four-year-olds introduced under Labour has been hugely successful in providing vital support for parents and in helping them back into work. We know from the latest data from the Department for Education this year that some 94% of three-year-olds and 99% of four-year-olds—around 1.3 million children in total—currently benefit from this provision, the vast majority of whom, 1.2 million children, benefit from the full 15 hours a week to which they are entitled.
	Kitty Stewart, research associate and associate professor at the Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion at the London School of Economics gave evidence to the Bill Committee last month. She commented on the remarkable progress seen with this child care offer over the last decade or so, saying:
	“Considerable progress has been made in expanding access to early education and childcare over the last decade. One million new places have been created and the near universal take up of the free entitlement for three and four year olds is a remarkable achievement, ensuring that those families who were least likely to use ECEC services now have access.”
	That is why we believe, as set out in new clause 1, that the Government should consider extending this hugely successful and effective offer to three and four-year-olds whose parents both work, in addition to the support provided in the Bill. We believe that doing so would be a far more effective way of achieving the Government’s aim of supporting parents with the cost of child care and helping more parents get back into work—aims that I know we all support.

Alex Cunningham: I rise to support new clause 1 and specifically to speak to amendments 1 and 2, which are aimed at getting a fairer deal for parents with disabled children by respectively rethinking how we identify qualifying children to expand the definition beyond that planned by the Government, aligning it with the prescriptions of the Childcare Act 2006, and increasing the amount of top-up payment available to support parents of disabled children.
	The provisions in clause 14 relate to “qualifying children” and lay out the criteria that such children must meet to be eligible for the scheme. Clause 14 is therefore fundamental to the entire Bill, so it is of the utmost importance that we get its provisions right. Failure to do so risks undermining the entire scheme.
	After this amendment was brought forward in Committee, I understand that the Government’s intention was to frame regulations such that a “qualifying child”
	is defined as one aged under 12 or, in the case of a disabled child, under 17. I do not need to recap fully on the reasoning I set out in Committee; suffice it to say, as I mentioned at the time, that the stated definition of a disabled child does not fit easily with section 6 of the Childcare Act 2006, which places a duty on local authorities to provide sufficient child care for working parents with disabled children aged up to 18 “as far as practicable”.
	The Exchequer Secretary objected to raising the age of eligibility for disabled children to 18 on the grounds that the age limit was set in line with the child care element of universal credit. However, it is important to recognise that the regulations on the child care element of universal credit reflect a maximum age that was set more than a decade ago when the child care element of working tax credit was established. Put simply, markedly less evidence was available on how families use child care, and our understanding has improved greatly since.
	The Childcare Act 2006, however, was designed to take into account the evidence of child care needs in families with disabled children, which in many cases remain significant up to 18 and beyond. It therefore makes sense to adopt the maximum age set by the Childcare Act, which set a higher age because it was based on a comprehensive review of the available evidence, rather than revert back to an historical maximum age that no longer reflects our best understanding of families’ child care needs.
	Through the tax-free child care scheme, the Government are committing significant new resources to support parents with child care costs. This will come at a cost of more than £800 million each year, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) made it very clear that we welcome that. There must be some scope to ensure that a balance exists between supporting all parents and those who face significant additional costs.
	The additional costs of raising a disabled child are well documented, and the Minister herself noted in Committee that she was “conscious” of these additional child care costs that families with disabled children might have to meet. I need not go into any great detail, but these can include such things as extra nappies or continence supplies, specially designed shoes, IT adaptations and communication aids, as well as specially adapted toys or equipment. That is on top of the day-to-day premium that is paid already in the shape of higher travel and activity costs, and the like.
	The Minister noted in Committee that the Government already provide additional support to disabled children, pointing to universal credit, which she suggested provides
	“more generous support for disabled adults and disabled children than it does for people in similar circumstances who are not disabled.”––[Official Report, Childcare Payments Public Bill Committee, 23 October 2014; c. 192.]
	However, it is critical that we are clear about this. This extra support for disabled children that comes as part of universal credit is designed to offset the extra costs that have already been acknowledged, and not to pay for child care. This is the difference. If child care costs could be met within the basic element of tax credits, there would be no need for a further child care element for all parents. That, however, is not the case, and the Government have recognised as much by accepting that the significant extra costs of child care justify an additional child care element.
	Time and again, it has been emphasised that parents with disabled children often face markedly higher child care costs. As the Committee heard when taking oral evidence, 38% of parents with disabled children paid between £11 and £20 an hour for child care, while 5% paid more than £20 an hour. This is obviously very high when compared to the national average of £3.50 to £4.50 an hour. The support parents receive should reflect that reality.
	This brings me nicely on to the case for amendment 2, which is designed explicitly to address the problem of affordability of child care for all parents with disabled children through the tax-free child care scheme by increasing the amount of support available through top-up payments. As Members are all aware, access to good-quality, affordable child care is important for all parents. Quality provision has positive impacts on children’s learning outcomes as well as wider benefits such as enabling parents to work.
	However, the recent independent parliamentary inquiry into child care for disabled children highlighted that parents with disabled children are often excluded from child care owing to a range of barriers, including affordability. It is an uncomfortable reality that childhood disability is a not uncommon trigger for poverty because families incur considerable additional and ongoing expenses as a result. As I mentioned a few moments ago, the costs associated with bringing up a disabled child can be as much as three times higher than those incurred by bringing up a child without a disability.
	The principal driver behind these high costs is the additional cost of one-to-one care or extra supervision, while suitable providers might need to meet the cost of physical adaptations and staff training. As I mentioned in Committee, I was pleased to see the Minister acknowledge these additional child care costs that families will need to meet and to hear her commitment to explore the possibility of going further to support these families. She now needs to do that. Even so, I hope that she will agree to examine the amendment in more detail, with a view to doubling the top-up available for disabled children from 20% to 40%.
	Restrictively high child care costs are self defeating in that they act as a barrier to inclusion for both parents and children. Of parents who responded to the inquiry survey, 80% of lone parents and 66% of couple parents who did not work full time said they wanted to find work or work more, while 72% of families with disabled children had cut back or given up work because of child care problems.
	Worryingly, the survey also highlighted that parents without access to mainstream child care were struggling to find opportunities for their children to be independent, build confidence and make friends. Many Members will be aware that disabled children are much more dependent on organised activities, which fall within the child care registration system, to stay active, make friends and participate in activities outside of school.
	As a direct consequence, parents with disabled children are more dependent on accessing child care provision to support family well-being and manage what is often an extremely tough combination of caring and work. However, with high child care costs and a reduced scope for work, these are needs that are all too often unmet. Indeed, the 1,200 parents and carers who responded to the independent parliamentary inquiry’s survey made it overwhelmingly
	clear that existing financial support for disabled children is not addressing the barriers of affordability. Despite the support that is currently available, child care is still beyond the reach of many families with disabled children because the hourly cost means that they quickly reach the weekly cap on support.
	In addition to the burden imposed by higher everyday costs, there is the problem that less good-quality child care provision is available to parents of disabled children. Only two in five parent carers believe that child care providers in their areas can cater for their children’s disabilities, while only 35% feel that providers are available at times that conform with their daily commitments. According to the survey, matters are made even worse for parents of disabled children by the limited choice of suitable child care.
	Both those issues must be addressed if the barriers to social inclusion are to be removed and parents are to be helped to work. The discrepancies in support for parents of disabled children are abundantly clear. Supporting amendment 1, and taking steps to align the maximum age of eligibility for the tax-free child care scheme and the child care element of universal credit with the Childcare Act 2006, would ensure that older disabled children benefited from financial support, and would help to remedy the poor provision for that age group. Failing to adopt the amendment would effectively mean that disabled children as young as 16 lost out. We all know that it would greatly improve the well-being of young people and benefit their families if support continued until after their 18th birthdays.

Maria Miller: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, because it accords with my experience in my constituency, but does he not think that local authorities have an obligation to ensure that there is sufficient care for disabled children? KIDS nursery in my constituency is a specialist nursery for disabled children. Should not local authorities be thinking about providing such services as well?

Alex Cunningham: I have been fighting the ending of specialist nursing provision at my local hospital, because it meets the specific needs of parents of disabled children. There has been a considerable reduction in the amount of money that enables local authorities to meet the demand for essential services—if they were given more means, they might well be able to expand provision—but I agree with the right hon. Lady that someone should take responsibility, and I think that my amendment goes some way towards ensuring that that happens.
	In Committee, the Minister said:
	“It is right that we make the new scheme consistent with the current framework.”––[Official Report, Child care Payments Public Bill Committee, 23 October 2014; c. 192.]
	I urge her to reconsider her decision not to increase support for parents of disabled children. She can help today by increasing the maximum age at which disabled children become eligible for the tax-free child care scheme—and, in future, for the child care element of universal credit —to 18, to align the scheme with the prescriptions of the Childcare Act sufficiency duty, and to give the families of disabled children the support that they need and deserve.
	At the same time, the Government should aim to establish a framework that would include all children with disabilities in child care in order to fulfil the basic
	principles of equality and inclusion. Equitable access to affordable, flexible, high-quality child care would be hugely valuable to children’s social and educational development, not to mention parents’ well-being and long-term economic prospects. In its present form, however, the tax-free child care scheme will not effectively remove the additional affordability barriers from parents with disabled children. To address that inequality, the Government should provide the additional top-up payments for disabled children through the tax-free child care scheme that amendment 2 would provide. I hope that the Minister will consider that proposal.

Priti Patel: It gives me great pleasure to speak in the debate. Let me begin by thanking everyone who contributed to the Committee stage, engaging in constructive dialogue, submitting the Bill to line-by-line scrutiny, sharing their views and giving evidence. I think that all Members found the evidence sessions extremely helpful. Opposition Members tabled a number of well-considered probing amendments that were designed to seek clarification throughout—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. This is not an opportunity to review all the work that was done in Committee. The debate is very narrow. The Minister should be responding to the debate on new clause 1 and the amendments. I do not want her to come to that gradually; it is the only thing that she should be doing. I have given her a little bit of latitude, but perhaps she will now return to new clause 1.

Priti Patel: I will do so very promptly, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	New clause 1 would require the Government to publish, within three months of Royal Assent, an assessment of the benefits of this scheme to parents of three and four-year-old children, together with an assessment of the benefits in addition to the likely benefits of funding 25 hours of free child care per week for such parents.
	The Government fully understand the importance of high-quality early education for that age group, which is why they fund 15 hours a week of early education for every three or four-year-old. We have extended that entitlement to the least advantaged 40% of two-year-olds, thus saving their families about £2,440 a year. By the end of this financial year, funding for early education places alone will have risen by over £1 billion during the current Parliament. We have committed ourselves to that substantial investment in early education because there is overwhelming evidence, here and elsewhere in the world, that high-quality early education has long-lasting benefits for children. We have seen big year-on-year improvements in the development of five-year-old children who have benefited from early learning, although we recognise that many factors influence school readiness and later attainment. We have commissioned academically robust and detailed research in order to understand more about the way in which high-quality early education affects children’s attainment and social and behavioural development.
	However, it is important to recognise—as the Bill does—that the cost of child care is an issue not just for under-fives, but for school-age children. For many working families, the high costs of child care make it one of the
	largest parts of the household budget. The Government believe that there is a powerful case for improving access to child care throughout childhood, and to ensure that parents are helped to work if they choose to do so. The new scheme for children up to the age of 12 will build on the £5 billion per year that the Government already spend on early education and child care. It will help many more parents to meet their costs, including self-employed parents who cannot gain access to support under the existing employer-supported child-care scheme.
	We recognise that every family is different, and will have different child-care needs and cost. We recognise that no one size fits all. The scheme is therefore designed to provide flexible support for working families, and to cater for different family circumstances. For example, it will allow parents to build up money in their child-care accounts to cover increased costs at holiday times.
	As I have already said many times during our debates on the Bill, the Government have made a clear commitment to reviewing the impact of the scheme two years after its full implementation. That was made clear in the impact assessment that was published alongside the Bill. The review will consider the impact on all age groups within the scope of the scheme—which will, of course, include three and four-year olds—but it will not consider the effects of free early education, which is already the subject of extensive evaluation.
	The Government take the evaluation of early education very seriously. We have commissioned a significant longitudinal study of early education and development, which will evaluate the effectiveness of the current early-education model in England and, more specifically, the impact of funded early-years education on two-year-olds from lower-income families. It will also update evidence from the effective pre-school and primary education project. It will continue until 2020.
	The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) made a number of points. For instance, she mentioned children’s centres. Let me reiterate that the Government want to see a strong network of children’s centres throughout the country, offering families access to a wide range of local and flexible services, tackling disadvantage, and preparing children for later life. Again, we covered in Committee many of the points about what goes on in centres and support in children’s centres.
	The hon. Lady also specifically mentioned supply-side provision of child care, which we touched on in Committee, too. There are 100,000 more child care places than there were in 2009 and a lot of work is being done on the supply-side provision of child care, which is the point of this Bill.
	On the quality side, we are providing £50 million in extra funding in 2015-16 to nurseries, schools and other providers of Government-funded early education, to support disadvantaged three and four-year-olds. This is also about improving quality as well as quantity, and improving qualifications for the early-years work force and introducing early-years educator qualifications are vital. We have discussed that, too.
	The hon. Lady made a point about the overall support for child care and those on lower incomes. The overall system of child care support remains focused on those
	on lower incomes. The Government are already spending over £1 billion a year on child care support through tax credits and will extend this support in universal credit. Under UC, this Government are investing an additional £400 million so that families can claim up to 85% off the costs of child care from 2016, and £200 million is also being put in so that child care support will be available regardless of the number of hours worked.
	The hon. Lady mentioned the impact assessment and the average increase in tax-free child care being £600. On average this increase in support is £600, but the average award will be higher because that is an average figure.
	The hon. Lady also mentioned access to the internet for families—for 200,000 families—and I would like to bring some clarity on this point. The newspaper stories that appeared yesterday were inaccurate because what was reported is simply not fully the case; they distort the situation. As outlined in the letter circulated to Members of Parliament, there will be “assisted approaches” for families who cannot access the internet, which will make sure that no parent misses out. We do recognise that some parents will have difficulty accessing or using the internet, and in such cases Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will support them to register and use their child care account online, providing opportunities for learning and, where appropriate, encouraging parents to use online services independently in future. I touched on this in Committee: the HMRC support is very specific and the support will be there. I want to make that clear so no Members leave the House tonight thinking there is no support for those families. Where parents are simply not able to access the internet, there will be facilities for them to access the scheme by telephone. That point was also made previously.
	We also touched extensively in Committee on the point about the system being too complex. I want to assure all Members that this scheme is designed with parents in mind. It is intended to be streamlined in its application, and very straightforward, simple, flexible and convenient for parents. As I said in Committee, we are working with parents and many stakeholder groups—including many who gave evidence in Committee, and those we have been working with on the design of this scheme—to ensure that their suggestions, advice, counsel and guidance are taken on board.
	This is not meant to be a complex scheme. It is meant to be as user-friendly for parents as possible, which is why we are listening and consulting, because it is all about the design and making sure that those who need to access the scheme can do so.

Maria Miller: The Minister will have provided a great deal of clarity today for parents who might have been concerned about some of the reports they had read in the papers. I thank her on behalf of my constituents for what she has said.
	The Minister mentioned the communication she is having with stakeholder groups. Is she also communicating with employers to make sure they are aware of the way the new system will work, especially those who may want to make their own contributions to their staff’s child care costs?

Priti Patel: I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention and comments. She is absolutely right; as she will know from discussions in Committee, this
	scheme has been designed to be parent-focused—parent-friendly is, I think, the term to use—and to work with employers, because this is about engaging both parties to communicate, educate and inform. Employers have an important role to play—we must not forget that—so working with employers on the scheme design is key.
	The introduction of this new scheme sits alongside strong early-education entitlement for pre-schoolers to support families and hard-pressed families with their child care costs and support parents to work more if they want to do so.
	As I said in Committee and we have touched on again today, we have already committed to reviewing the impact of this new scheme after two years, and it is hard to see what purpose would be served by a review only three months after Royal Assent, given the Government’s clear commitment to reviewing the scheme.
	I shall now move on to the points made about amendments 2 and 1 and the comments of the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). I welcome his comments and I followed his remarks with interest, and we discussed these matters in Committee. We fully accept that child care costs are higher for parents with disabled children; there is no disagreement here at all. The families and parents of disabled children struggle with the challenges of raising and looking after their children. We had a very fluid debate about this in Committee.
	The effect of amendment 2 is straightforward. It would increase the level at which the Government top-up payments are paid to parents of disabled children from 20% to 40%. This would mean in practice that for every £10 spent on child care, the Government would contribute £4 and the parent the remaining £6. This contrasts with the position set out in the Bill, which is that the Government would contribute £2 of every £10 spent on child care.
	I am very well aware of the keen interest the hon. Gentleman takes in families with disabled children. He spoke with great eloquence in Committee and I thank him for his contribution on this point. As he rightly pointed out, families with disabled children face significant costs, and that fact ought to be reflected in the scheme. A number of witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee made similar points. I have already put on the record that I fully understand the arguments the hon. Gentleman and others have made and it is absolutely right that parents of disabled children are properly supported, which brings me to why I will ask him to withdraw his amendments.

Alex Cunningham: I thank the Minister for her kind comments, but the multiplication that I want to achieve for disabled children does not even reflect the multiplication factor in their child care costs. Child care can cost £20 an hour, but all I am asking is that the Government double the amount of support they give. I am not asking them to increase it by four or five times.

Priti Patel: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment. I outlined measures relating to disabled children in Committee. We recognise the high costs faced by parents of disabled children, and the specialist care that their children need, but increasing the amount of top-up is obviously not appropriate, for the reasons that I have already outlined. I have made a commitment on disabled children, and I am exploring the possibility of increasing
	the maximum amount that a parent of a disabled child can pay into their child care account. For those reasons, I ask the Opposition to withdraw their new clause.

Catherine McKinnell: I thank the Minister for her thorough reply to the concerns that I expressed earlier. She has gone some way towards alleviating them, but some concerns remain. We shall have to give the Government the benefit of the doubt on the delivery of her reassurances, but that does not take away from the fact that dealing with the supply-side issues and extending the free entitlement for three and four-year-olds would constitute a much better offer to parents. The Government could do that now to provide support for parents who are struggling with child care costs and with the cost of living more generally. We will therefore press new clause 1 to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 206, Noes 274.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Review of impact on childcare costs

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, three months after this Act is passed, and every three years thereafter, review the impact of the measures in this Act on the cost of childcare with particular reference to—
	(a) the effectiveness of this Act on making childcare more affordable;
	(b) the average cost of childcare for parents in work, including the impact of other changes to the tax and benefits system and with reference to the trends in childcare costs since 2010; and
	(c) the impact of supply-led measures on the cost of childcare.’—(Alison McGovern.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Alison McGovern: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 12, in clause 11, page 7, line 8, after “may —”, insert—
	“(a) repeal this section, or”.
	Amendment 13, in clause 15, page 9, line 10, after “may —”, insert—
	“(a) amend this Act to allow childcare accounts to be held by persons other than those specified in subsection (1),”.
	Amendment 3, in clause 30, page 17, line 3, leave out
	“an award of tax credit is or has been made”
	and insert
	“an award of tax credit which includes the childcare element is or has been made”.
	Amendment 4, page 17, line 18, after “credit”, insert
	“which includes the childcare element”.
	Amendment 5, page 17, line 22, after “credit”, insert
	“which includes the childcare element”.
	Amendment 6, page 17, line 31, after “credit”, insert
	“which includes the childcare element”.
	Amendment 7, in clause 32, page 19, line 16, after “credit”, insert
	“which includes the childcare element”.
	Amendment 8, in clause 35, page 21, line 21, after “credit”, insert
	“which includes the childcare element”.
	Amendment 9, page 21, line 32, after “credit”, insert
	“which includes the childcare element”.
	Amendment 10, in clause 36, page 22, line 12, after “credit”, insert
	“which includes the childcare element”.
	Amendment 11, page 22, line 24, after “credit”, insert
	“which includes the childcare element”.

Alison McGovern: It is a pleasure to speak in support of new clause 2, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). Before I continue, may I pause briefly to pay tribute to the outstanding work that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) did as my predecessor in this shadow position, and in particular to her scrutiny of the Bill in Committee?
	In and of itself, this is not a bad Bill. We agree with its aims; it sets out to address serious issues relating to child care costs and affordability, which we recognise form a major part of the crisis hitting so many families in Britain today. Our concerns with the Bill are that, for all its good intentions in proposing this scheme for payments towards child care costs, Treasury Ministers have not thought through all the potential consequences.
	Some of the Bill’s weaknesses may arise from the fact that, as far as the Government are concerned, this is purely a Treasury Bill; it has perhaps lacked some valuable input from those with a stronger experience of how the child care market actually operates—or, in far too many cases, fails to operate—in this country.
	In oral evidence to the Committee, numerous organisations and experts raised concerns about the long-term effects of the Bill, and we have seen little movement from the Government to address those worries. The new clause seeks to go some way to rectifying that, by requiring the Chancellor to keep under review the impact the scheme has on issues of child care cost inflation and, thus, affordability.
	Let me say a few words about the situation in which we find ourselves. There is, undeniably, a crisis in child care costs. There is no need to take my word for that or to rely on the testimony we hear on the doorsteps in our constituencies. The Office for National Statistics tells us that between 2010 and 2014 the cost of placing a two-year-old or older in nursery rose by 31%—wages rose by just under 4% in that period—and for under-twos the figure rose by 27%. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who is sitting on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, wants to intervene, he is welcome to. [Interruption.] I shall take that to mean he does not.
	The figures also reveal that, as we have seen so often during the past four years, the areas seeing the least benefit from this weak and uneven recovery have been hit the hardest by child care cost increases. In my region of the north-west, costs are up by 46% in just four years. Over the Pennines, in the north-east, the figure is 47%. A family in my constituency is having to find, on average, £31 a week more to fund 25 hours of nursery for their two-year-old, three-year-old or four-year-old. That is a hefty sum in almost anyone’s money. When that is tied in with frozen wages, reduced tax credits, increased VAT and soaring housing costs, it all becomes a pretty desperate recipe—I hear testimony on that from my constituents week in, week out.
	We know that not only are there regional biases to costs, but families with disabled children are being hit disproportionately hard as well. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), who was a doughty champion for the parents of disabled children in Committee and who has tabled amendments 1 to 13 today. The cross-party parliamentary inquiry on child care for disabled children, of which my hon. Friend was a member and which was chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) and the hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), produced some valuable findings on that point.
	Some 86% of parents with disabled children report paying above the average price for child care; in many cases, they are paying up to £20 a week more. Those parents will be hit even harder by the rapid rate of child care cost inflation. For too many families, child care costs are now their No.1 outgoing. If two parents work part time on average wages, it will be Thursday of each week before they have paid their child care bills and can move on to paying for everything else. That is a crisis indeed.
	Put simply, the Government have not got to grips with child care costs, partly because they have failed so miserably to resolve the issues of availability of care, to which I will turn in just a moment. That failure has guaranteed that child care is one of the driving forces behind the feeling of so many families that they are not getting the benefits of economic recovery. If there is growth, too many people are just not feeling its benefits. Many parents find that going back to work, or going back to work for their preferred number of hours, is simply not financially viable. The policy reduces employment—it is why Britain has one of the lowest maternal employment rates in the OECD—and contributes to the gender pay gap. However, this is by no means a women-only issue; dads are hit by unaffordable child care too. By hitting family budgets and cutting the ability to earn, high child care costs contribute far too often to child poverty.
	After more than a million children were lifted out of poverty under the previous Labour Government, progress has now ground to a halt. The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission says that if the Government continue on the current track, they are doomed to miss the 2020 target to eradicate child poverty. We will not meet that noble aim, established by the previous Government, without a serious policy on affordable child care.
	Any steps to increase the support available to families are welcome. Labour’s Front-Bench team have made it clear at every stage that we do not oppose the Bill and that we support its aims. In some respects, it builds on the scheme introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) in 2004, which allowed for £50 of tax-free child care each week. The tax system is a valuable mechanism in securing more affordable child care, but there are limitations to its effectiveness.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North has already said in relation to new clause 1, there are real risks from adopting a demand-side-only approach to this issue. There is little in the Bill that seeks to address the underlying inflation of child care costs. Indeed, there is serious concern in many quarters that it could simply end up exacerbating those pressures. The Committee heard evidence from Australia that, following the introduction of a 30% child care rebate, the following decade saw child care costs rise by 100%, compared with an inflation rate of just 27%. There are similar such examples in the Netherlands.
	We should be frank that the introduction of the UK tax credit system, immensely valuable as it was, was followed by a period when child care cost inflation was higher. We want the Government to learn properly from that experience. The simple fact is that many child care providers are close to breaking point. Their operating costs have risen significantly. Some held down price increases during the worst years of the downturn so as to retain customers and are now under even more strain. Some have gone under. This is not a market with lots of spare cash floating around, either from provider or consumer.
	In the Bill, the Government propose to put a significant sum into the market, and that will be a welcome boost. However, it is only logical and understandable that businesses that face rising costs, and which may have attempted to restrain price increases in the worst years, should see the moment when consumer spending power
	increases overnight as an appropriate time to increase their fees. The National Day Nurseries Association told the Committee that its members needed to “play catch-up” with regard to prices. In written evidence, the Family and Childcare Trust said that
	“there is little incentive for these providers not to increase prices to take advantage of the extra subsidy.”
	The Institute for Public Policy Research has gone so far as to estimate that the inflationary pressures unleashed by the extra cash could negate the positive impact of the subsidy to families within a matter of just a few years. That is a crucial point of which the Government should be aware. If they really want each and every family in our country to see the benefit of growth, they must be aware of the risks that they face. Such an outcome would obviously be bad for parents, who would be paying as much as they do now for the same thing, but it would also mean that the Government had secured appalling value for money for their child care policy. We all have an interest, across the House, in ensuring that that does not happen. It is also why Labour is deeply sceptical about the wisdom of a demand-side-only approach.

Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Lady accept that there are particular stresses on parents in rural areas, as the cost of travel has to be added to the cost of child care itself? The money could be better deployed in such areas in increasing the provision rather than the amount that child care providers get.

Alison McGovern: It is important for all of us to recognise the extra pressures on families in rural areas. People’s circumstances are different. We want to increase employment in rural areas as well as in suburban and urban areas. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

Alex Cunningham: My hon. Friend helps me to talk about the needs of parents with disabled children. When inflation and prices go up, the increase is felt particularly acutely by those families. Does she agree that the Government really need to think again about that particular element?

Alison McGovern: Again, I support the views of my hon. Friend. Too often, parents of children with disabilities are forgotten in our debates. They have the most important responsibility. Children with disabilities deserve all our care and attention. I hope that, by raising this matter, we can remind ourselves that their parents might not have the time to make these points, so it is important that we all remember the extra costs and the circumstances that those parents face. We all have an interest in this matter. It is why Labour is sceptical about the wisdom of a demand-side-only approach.
	In general, better value for money and better outcomes could be achieved through a radical expansion of the free child care entitlement to three and four-year-olds, from 15 hours a week to 25, paid for by an extension of the bank levy. There is no better week than this to be making the argument about extending the bank levy, as once again we are seeing banks being taken to task for their poor behaviour. I make no apology for reminding Members about the importance of that bank levy, especially as it could pay for something as vital as child care.
	As we saw from the debate on new clause 1, the Government are not about to accept the policy—more fool them—but we want to ensure that Ministers are required to keep track of the inflationary impacts. New clause 2 requires that within three months of the Bill’s becoming an Act and every three years subsequently, the Chancellor will have to review the impact of the subsidy on making child care more affordable, on what the average cost of child care for parents in work is and on whether supply-led measures could be more effective. That is not a massively onerous burden on the immense capabilities of the Treasury, but a very valuable canary in the coal mine regarding child care inflation.
	In Committee, the Minister was consistently against any suggestion of hourly rate capping or other means of placing a brake on any inflationary pressures arising from the policy. A regular review might demonstrate whether the post hoc implementation of such provisions might in fact be necessary if the subsidy is to be anything more than a damp squib.
	The Bill is a blunt instrument that fails to target Government funding and gives the most financial support to the best-off families. It will possibly provide some short-term relief for parents, but does little to deal with the underlying problems of inflation, supply and quality in the child care system. There are 40,000 fewer child care places in England than there were when the Government came to power and almost 4,000 fewer suppliers. Childminder numbers are down by 13%. For tens and likely hundreds of thousands of families across the country, the proposals in the Bill will mean little or nothing because they simply cannot find a child care place or access one that will offer the flexibility in hours to fit around work. We need radical reform of the broken child care market. This Bill does not provide it, but by supporting new clause 2 today Members can at least take a step that will help guard against its being a worse than a useless creator of child care cost inflation.

Alex Cunningham: My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) has already talked about the complexity of the Government’s scheme. Amendments 12, 13 and 3 to 11 are all aimed at simplifying the relationship and interaction between the tax-free child care scheme and other sources of support, particularly tax credits and universal credit.
	Members might be aware that I tabled amendments 3 to 11 in Committee with the intention of broadening the provisions of the Bill and allowing those households in receipt of tax credits that do not receive any support for their child care costs in their tax credit award to receive support from the tax-free child care scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) has already outlined that the working poor have been hit most by the policies of this Government and I would like that not to apply to child care.
	Giving those people help will entail several minor changes being made to the clauses dealing with the special rules affecting tax credits and universal credit claimants: specifically clauses 30, 32, 35 and 36. In Committee, the Minister was very clear about the need to deliver a welfare system that is
	“designed to encourage progression into work”.––[Official Report, Childcare Payments Public Bill Committee, 23 October 2014; c. 223.]
	However, that is not what will result from the Bill in its current form.
	Let us take as an example a parent who is offered 15 hours of work a week on a low rate of pay. Most, if not all, of any gains from this employment could be totally lost in child care costs. They would not get any support from the Government to meet those costs and might therefore not be able to afford to take the work in the first place, and I for one would not be surprised if they chose to spend the time with their children instead. These amendments, however, would create a much greater financial incentive for people to start working part time.
	It is important to be clear from the outset that the purpose of the tax-free child care scheme is to provide support for child care costs for those who are not eligible for help from elsewhere. As I mentioned when I raised the matter in Committee, there is an anomaly in the Bill if we are serious about encouraging people to go back into work or to stay in work—particularly those who are on the lowest earned incomes in our society.
	The Bill as it stands says that the Minister recognises that there are some who do not get any help through tax credits but that the Government will do nothing to help. I am sure that that is not what she intends. Indeed, in Committee, she specified that the new scheme should not interfere with financial incentives for people to work more hours, let alone create perverse incentives, but that is precisely what the Bill will do.
	Many parents who claim tax credits are both working and incurring child care costs, but they are not entitled to claim the child care element because, for instance, they do not meet the minimum number of working hours per week to qualify. Clause 30, however, makes it clear that any tax credit award will be terminated when a valid claim for the tax-free child care scheme is made, regardless of whether the child care element of working tax credit is received. Put into context, that means that households in which one parent is working full-time while the other works 12 hours a week will not be entitled to receive the child care element of tax credits to support them in the payment of child care costs. Similarly, single parents working 15 hours or fewer per week on average will also not be entitled to the child care element of working tax credit. Both would have to pay for their child care out of their own, potentially low, earnings.
	There can be no doubt that that would be all the harder to swallow if they knew that their next door neighbour, who worked the additional hour to hit 16 hours a week at minimum wage, would get up to 70% of their child care costs paid through tax credits, or that their neighbour on the other side who earned too much to receive any tax credits would get support of up to £2,000 per child through each of their tax-free child care accounts.
	We all know that many part-time workers have very little control over whether they can work more than 16 hours. Shift workers often have to work the hours that are available to them. It can be a big disincentive to work if people cannot guarantee that they will be able to secure 16 hours of work and qualify for the support that would mean that they would be able to cover the costs of child care. These amendments would give working
	families that security, allowing them to go to work safe in the knowledge that however many hours they work, they will have enough support to pay for their child care.
	In Committee, the Minister highlighted the fact that as earnings increase tax credit payments are gradually reduced. That includes any child care element. However, that should not result in any additional complexity, because what matters under the amendment is a parent’s initial entitlement, not whether their final payment has been tapering off. At the same time, the amendment would also conveniently address another matter. As I said in Committee, many parents will be very aware that they do not receive help with child care costs from tax credits. Some are therefore likely to be confused by the message that the tax-free child care scheme is to provide support for child care costs to those who are not eligible for help from other sources that are state funded. Indeed, I for one would not consider it unreasonable or unforeseeable for parents in such circumstances to expect that they can claim tax-free child care in addition to tax credits. However, if they claim tax-free child care, their claim for tax credits will be stopped.
	I hope that the Minister will examine very carefully what she could achieve by accepting this group of amendments. She could provide some very limited support to those who need it most and at relatively little cost. Once again, I ask her to consent to paying a 20% top-up on small contributions to child care made by some of our poorest working people who are otherwise at risk of slipping through the safety net.
	Amendments 12 and 13 would similarly make provision to close potential holes in the safety net. They would allow the current scheme to go forward as designed, but, if it were deemed desirable following the necessary further consultation, they would create provision for tax-free child care and/or child care accounts to be expanded to households in receipt of universal credit or tax credits without the need for additional primary legislation. In Committee, the Minister argued that families in receipt of universal credit will
	“already receive good, generous support for their child care costs”.––[Official Report, Childcare Payments Public Bill Committee, 21 October 2014; c. 176.]
	However, she also pointed out that, as we all know, the roll-out of universal credit is ongoing and quite slow. Although I do not doubt that much work is going in to getting it right, that is not a guarantee that the right formula will be achieved straight away.
	I was concerned, to say the least, that the Minister was unable to offer a definition of “changing circumstances” as that was deemed still to be a work in progress, and I feel it would be premature to rule out the possibility of extending the tax-free child care scheme and child care accounts without further primary legislation at this point. In essence, clause 11 specifies that neither a person receiving child care support under the tax-free scheme nor their partner can be in receipt of universal credit at the time of making a declaration of eligibility. Clause 15, on the other hand, deals with the rules that apply to child care accounts and sets out details such as who can hold an account and who can provide one. I will come to that in a few moments.
	The Committee discussed in some detail the complexity of the interaction between the various sources of support for child care costs, whether through the tax-free child care scheme, tax credits or universal credit. There can
	be no doubt that there is potential for great confusion among parents. Indeed, I suggest that those interactions have still not been adequately considered. The Minister claimed in Committee that it was the Government’s
	“objective and my mission to ensure that the scheme is easy for parents to use”––[Official Report, Childcare Payments Public Bill Committee, 21 October 2014; c. 176.]
	I urge her to look again at these amendments.
	The extreme complexity of the competing options is likely to lead to confusion for claimants, and to result in them having considerable difficulty making sensible and informed financial decisions. Take, for instance, the tax-free child care scheme in the Bill. The amount payable under the scheme is not means-tested, yet universal credit, tax credits and housing benefit are all means-tested, so the amounts payable will vary with income and circumstances. The upshot is that the system that is financially right for an individual will depend on a number of interconnected factors and will not always be immediately clear. It will, in short, become nigh on impossible for some to calculate.
	For those who are on the threshold between different systems, the complexity will be greater still. For many, particularly those with fluctuating incomes such as the self- employed, or those likely to have a change in circumstances later in the year, the complexity will be so great that it is likely to be impossible to provide a better off calculator that can cover many of the situations in which claimants find themselves.

Hywel Williams: I very much agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. His point applies particularly to people in seasonal industries such as agriculture or, as in my constituency, tourism. I am sure that he agrees that there is a particular problem for those sorts of workers.

Alex Cunningham: Yes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I most certainly do agree with him. Pieceworkers and others can have hours and wages that fluctuate over a long period; they will most certainly be affected. I feel that the
	“easy-to-use online tool”––[Official Report, Childcare Payments Public Bill Committee, 23 October 2014; c. 222.]
	promised by the Minister in Committee will prove elusive.
	On top of the sizeable potential for confusion, the different mechanisms by which child care costs are to be paid under the tax-free child care scheme and universal credit are also worrying. As we are aware, under the tax-free scheme, payments will be made through child care accounts. That will provide families who are in receipt of tax-free child care with an important budgeting tool to help them manage their finances; that is particularly important as payments will be made through child care account top-ups before costs are paid by the parent. However, child care support received through tax credits and universal credit cannot be provided through child care accounts. That means that child care payments are not aligned, which gives rise to the potential for further confusion and complexity for parents, and it means that an important budgeting tool for households in receipt of tax-free child care is not available to those receiving child care support through universal credit.
	It is worth highlighting that the Children’s Society report, “The Debt Trap”, found households in poverty containing dependent children to be twice as likely to be in some form of arrears as families on higher incomes.
	It is precisely these families who are most likely to need help budgeting, but who will be given the least support. Moreover, universal credit payments of child care costs will be made in arrears. As Members will be aware, parents are usually required to pay child care providers one month in advance, but families on low incomes claiming universal credit are likely to have the lowest savings, if any at all; this will inevitably result in many being forced to borrow money to pay for their child care up front. We should be under no illusion: that could be a hefty sum, and if child care costs are higher during school holidays, further loans may be required to meet those costs. This runs the obvious risk of forging a cycle of dependence. Reporting requirements for universal credit are significantly greater than those for either tax credits or tax-free child care, and any failure to report in time will lead to the loss of all payments for that assessment period.

Mark Durkan: Does the hon. Gentleman not think it strange that in this time of austerity and everything else that we hear about, the Government have come forward, under this Bill, with a child care payment scheme that gives more, including more flexibility, to those who have more? I am thinking of the bankable allowances and so on. Compare that with what the Government are providing, in terms of child care, under the universal credit rules. It really is one scheme for the better-off, and another, much worse scheme for the less well-off.

Alex Cunningham: I most certainly do agree with my hon. Friend. It is a peculiar world—I would use the word “bonkers”—when someone earning £100,000 can benefit more from a new Government scheme than somebody on perhaps £20,000. It is important that the Government think again on some of these points.
	Let us not forget that families on higher incomes will get their child care accounts topped up by the Government before they have to pay their provider, so the rich get paid up front, while the poor do not get any payment at all. One possible solution that could be explored further is the provision of child care accounts and tax-free child care to families in receipt of child care support through tax credits or universal credit. Allowing these claimants to use child care accounts to receive their payments of child care costs would allow receipt in advance of payment, but without the risk of any overpayments being lost within wider family budgets. However, as things stand, the Bill would not permit that without additional primary legislation. These minor amendments to clauses 11 and 15 would allow the tax-free child care scheme to go forward as designed, while allowing us the time to consult and to assess these issues fully. We would have the flexibility to make changes by regulation, rather than through additional primary legislation.
	Universal credit is still in its infancy and is being gradually rolled out. It seems to make little sense to limit how it may evolve by putting barriers, in the form of primary legislation, in the way of what may be sensible reforms. I would like to hear from the Minister what further considerations she has given to extending the tax-free child care scheme in this way, and expanding child care accounts beyond the scheme. I hope that she
	will support these minor amendments, which would allow for the potential benefits that those changes could deliver, particularly for some of the poorest people in our society.

Priti Patel: I welcome the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) to her position and post. It is good to hear from her. Obviously, she did not have the full benefit of participating in the Committee, so it is good to hear her views today.
	New clause 2 is about the Bill’s impact on child care costs, an issue that we discussed at some length in Committee. The new clause would require the Government to publish a review of the Bill’s impact on the cost of child care three months after it passed into law, and every three years thereafter. The review would have a particular focus on the effectiveness of the Act in making child care more affordable, the average cost of child care for working parents, and the impact of supply-led measures on costs.
	As I have said many times in debates on this Bill, the Government have made a clear commitment to review the impact of the scheme two years after full implementation. That was set out in the impact assessment published alongside the Bill. The Government feel that a two-year assessment period is reasonable and will allow sufficient time for the scheme to become bedded in, so that the full impacts can be assessed and properly evaluated in the context of wider Government policy. We do not think that there is anything to be gained from adding a further review after only three months.
	I think that all hon. and right hon. Members are rightly concerned about the impact that high child care costs have on working parents. We understand the cost of child care, and the Government are committed to supporting parents to meet that cost; that is the purpose of the Bill.

Bob Stewart: I assume that the Minister and her team will watch this very closely from the start. She may not need a review: if she saw something going wrong, she would take immediate action to correct it, before the two-year point.

Priti Patel: I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. Naturally, we want to get this right, so there is oversight at every level. Later in my remarks, I shall touch on areas where his remarks are valid and pertinent.
	We know that child care is an expensive outgoing for many families across the country. This Government understand the need for both demand and supply-led measures to ensure that the costs of child care do not spiral out of control. We have been taking steps to ensure that both sides of the problem are properly considered. The Government believe that increasing supply is an effective way of limiting further price rises, and are therefore making significant reforms to support the child care sector in increasing the supply of places.
	The Government are taking actions beyond the scope of the Bill to improve the quality and supply of child care provision. These reforms are designed to ensure that any increase in demand for child care arising from the new scheme will be matched by increased supply and not by increased costs. The latest figures show that there are about 100,000 more child care places than in 2009, and the Government are taking action to grow
	the supply of child care still further, which will improve choice and affordability for parents. For example, we are making start-up grants of up to £2 million available to help people set up new child care businesses. We are also enabling good and outstanding childminders to access funding for early education places. Only 4,000 do so currently, but as a result of our reforms, up to 32,000 will be automatically eligible. We are making it simpler and easier for schools and child care providers to work together to increase the amount of child care available on school sites, and only this year we have introduced childminder agencies, which are designed to improve the support available for both childminders and parents, and to simplify existing regulatory frameworks to allow nurseries to expand more easily.
	We recognise that child care costs place a significant financial burden on many families, but research shows that after 12 years of consistently rising prices, the costs of child care in England have stabilised for the first time. There is encouraging evidence that costs of some of the most popular types of child care are falling in England. For example, the Family and Childcare Trust reported in March that the cost of nurseries in 2014 was 2% lower than the previous year in real terms. Similarly, the cost of after-school clubs reduced by 5% in real terms during the same period. Once inflation is taken into account, costs for the majority of parents have fallen. This means that more parents are able to access affordable child care and support their families, and shows that the Government’s reforms are making a difference. We should compare that with the situation under Labour, when costs rose nearly 50% between 2002 and 2010, and the average cost of child care rose faster than inflation.
	Alongside these measures to increase the provision of good quality, affordable child care, the Government have taken significant steps to support families in meeting their child care costs.

Alex Cunningham: I welcome the fact that more families may well be able to access child care because of falling costs, but the costs are still high and they are paid by the poor as well as the rich. Will the Minister please outline what she will do for the working poor who do not qualify for anything under any of her schemes?

Priti Patel: I will come on to the hon. Gentleman’s amendments and refer specifically to the points he makes.
	For low earners, the Government will continue to pay up to 70% of child care costs through working tax credit, and under universal credit this support will be extended to up to 85% of costs when both parents are working, as all hon. Members heard in Committee. In addition, as we have touched on, the Government fund an early years entitlement of £15 a week.
	The Government are making good progress in tackling the root causes of child poverty, to which the hon. Member for Wirral South referred. All Governments are committed to ending child poverty once and for all, but I reiterate that work remains the best route out of poverty. We discussed this at length in Committee, including the interactions between universal credit, making work pay, and interdepartmental measures on child poverty.

Alison McGovern: The Minister mentions universal credit and making work pay—for too many families I only wish it did. Will she comment on the role of universal credit in discouraging dual earners? In the context of this child care debate, does she think the Government should look again at its operation?

Priti Patel: We had much debate in Committee on universal credit and the way in which the scheme interacts with it. The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) made some strong and valid contributions in this regard.
	Amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), would allow regulations in future to permit parents to receive support under the new scheme and universal credit at the same time. As I have said, we must not forget that families in receipt of universal credit already rightly receive generous support with their child care costs. Child care support is offered to parents on universal credit as part of a welfare system designed to make sure that work pays and that those who need the support get it. Up to 300,000 more people are likely to be in work as a result of universal credit, and we expect a significant proportion of those to be households with children. But it is not right for a parent to receive support under the new scheme in addition to universal credit, when parents will receive 85% of their child care costs from April 2016. It will be easy for parents to access support that best suits their circumstances, so I reassure the hon. Gentleman that parents who are eligible for universal credit will be able to opt out and claim support under the new scheme should they wish to do so. We shall be supporting parents in making those decisions.
	As we said in Committee—hon. Members have touched on it again today—we shall be launching the online support tools, the calculator and clear guidance. Draft guidance has been published well ahead of the launch of the scheme and shows our commitment to work in close collaboration with parents, child care providers and employers, and their feedback will ensure that guidance is tailored to meet their needs.
	This is about ensuring that support remains focused on those on lower incomes, and the introduction of the scheme gives parents confidence that as they increase their income and move off universal credit, they will continue to receive Government support with their child care costs, which is vital.

Alex Cunningham: I do not want to go over the top on this, but will the Minister please outline what help she proposes for families who do not qualify for anything at the moment but who are still the working poor?

Priti Patel: There is support that remains focused on those on lower incomes. As I said at length in Committee, the Government’s overall child care system is very much focused on those on lower incomes, and it is wrong to suggest that that is not the case. Families in receipt of tax credits receive more generous support with child care costs. We have already discussed universal credit, which is being extended to cover up to 85% of the costs of child care. All the analysis shows that the benefits of the scheme are focused on households on lower incomes. The new scheme ensures that for the first time parents can be certain that support will be available for them;
	yes, obviously, at the lower end, but importantly, as they move into work and increase their incomes too. The scheme is much more fairly targeted than the existing scheme of employer-supported child care. It supports working families, getting households and families back into work. It was debated at length in Committee, and I reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is the case.
	Today’s debate has shown that the Government are taking a broad range of actions to support families with the costs of child care, not just through this scheme, but through improvements in the welfare scheme—

Mark Durkan: In considering how the Government can best take this forward, will the Minister take account of the fact that whenever the Northern Ireland Assembly debated the legislative consent motion, there was much confusion, even on the part of the junior Minister, about its impact on child care in Northern Ireland? Child care provision in Northern Ireland has a different profile from here, and it seems that the Government’s scheme will lead to degrees of confusion and uncertainty, particularly for existing schemes that are well favoured.

Priti Patel: I take this opportunity to re-emphasise that the scheme in no way creates confusion. In Committee we touched briefly on the situation in Northern Ireland and provided information and guidance in that regard. This is about working with all the players—parents, employers, and other stakeholders. It is about making the system abundantly clear and simple, not about complexity. Guidance has been drafted. We are working with third parties. We are designing a calculator tool, as we have discussed before. This is all about giving guidance and providing clarity.
	I shall briefly cover amendments 3 to 11 on families in receipt of tax credits. The child care element of tax credits is just one component of the package of support designed to help lower-income households. I emphasise that there is support for those on low incomes, in particular. We should reflect on the fact that under the new scheme more working families than ever before will be eligible for support with child care costs. The scheme will be an important component of the overall offer to working families. It will sit alongside existing schemes to ensure that support is available to those increasing their incomes as they move off benefits.

Alex Cunningham: Does the Minister not see any advantage in leaving the door open by amending the Bill to allow for the scheme to be extended at a later stage? As I said in my speech, it will take primary legislation to extend the scheme any further, whereas she could accept an amendment that would mean that the door was open to simple, straightforward regulation instead.

Priti Patel: I commend the hon. Gentleman for his tenacity in making that point again, as is absolutely right and proper. I reiterate that the Government are committed to reviewing the scheme, as I have outlined previously in Committee and during today’s debates on new clauses 1 and 2. It has to be right and proper to have that review. Once the scheme has bedded down
	and we have had the full assessment and evaluation, we will look at all its aspects. I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman sufficient reassurance. I ask him to withdraw his amendment and Labour Front Benchers to withdraw their new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided:
	Ayes 208, Noes 272.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Third Reading

Priti Patel: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The Bill has been many months in development through consultation, drafting and detailed discussion in Parliament, and I am sure the House will agree that it will leave the Commons in good shape.
	Before I proceed, I would like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education who, as Financial Secretary, was responsible for some of the key features of the scheme and introduced the Bill in the House of Commons in June. I spoke on Second Reading as a Back Bencher, and it is an honour for me to appear today as the Minister responsible for the Bill.
	I welcome this further opportunity to speak on the Bill and to reflect on the important role it will play in the Government’s broader strategy to get people into work. One of our fundamental principles has been that every person who can stand on their own two feet
	should do so. That means being in work, making their contribution and taking responsibility. We want to empower people in their choices. As a mother myself, I strongly believe that child care costs should not be a barrier to work. Since 2010 we have introduced a comprehensive package of measures to help working families cover nursery costs for their children. The new child care scheme will greatly expand the support we provide to working families towards their child care costs.
	Even before the financial crisis, there were around 5 million people in the United Kingdom of working age on out-of-work benefits, some 1.4 million of whom have spent the past decade unemployed. The number of households where no one had ever worked almost doubled between 1997 and 2010, so when we took office in 2010 we made getting people back into work one of our key priorities. We can be proud of some major successes. Figures from the Office for National Statistics have shown that unemployment fell by 154,000 to below 1.97 million in the three months to the end of August, the first time it has been below 2 million since 2008. Since 2010, the UK has created over 2 million more jobs for people to go to—the fastest rate of job creation of any major economy, or, as the Financial Times put it in September, more jobs than the rest of the European Union combined. Female participation in the work force is at an all-time high, and we should welcome that.
	As ever, there is more that can be done. If we had the same levels of men and women participating in the labour market, the OECD says that could lead to an increase in GDP of around 10% by 2030. Survey data from the Department for Education suggest that more than half of mothers would prefer to be in paid employment if they could arrange reliable, convenient, affordable, good quality child care. The Government are therefore taking action to ensure that high quality child care is available and affordable. We recognise that child care costs are a major part of most working families’ budgets so we are putting in place measures to help every working family in the UK with their child care costs.
	We have almost doubled the amount of child care support available to most middle earners, and we are doing even more for those on low pay. We are already funding 15 hours a week of free child care for every three and four-year-old, funding 15 hours a week of free child care for 40% of two-year-olds, and increasing the child care support for low income families to 85% under universal credit. Now, this scheme will significantly broaden access to child care support. Hundreds of thousands of families who are excluded from the current employer-supported child care scheme will be able to benefit from the scheme, and up to 200,000 self-employed parents will have access to child care support.
	We have paid particular attention to designing the scheme so that it suits the needs of part-time workers. Parents earning as little as £52 per week—averaged over a quarterly entitlement period, or over a tax year for self-employed parents—will qualify for support.
	We do not believe, however, that providing direct support to parents is the only way to address the high cost of child care. That is best achieved by supporting the child care sector to increase supply, which will ensure that any increase in demand for child care will be matched by increased supply measures, rather than just increased costs.
	The latest figures show there are now 100,000 more child care places than there were in 2009. We are making start-up grants available to help people set up new child care businesses. We have made up to 32,000 good and outstanding childminders automatically eligible for early education funding. We are making it simpler and easier for schools and child care providers to work together to increase the amount of child care available on school sites before and after school. Only this year, we have created childminder agencies, which will improve the support available both for childminders and for parents, and simplified existing regulatory frameworks to allow nurseries to expand more easily.
	The evidence shows that our reforms are having an effect. After 12 years of consistently rising prices, the costs of child care in England have stabilised for the first time. Indeed, the costs of some of the most popular types of child care in England are now falling. Once inflation is taken into account, costs for the majority of parents have actually fallen, which means that more parents are able to access affordable child care and support their families. By contrast, the costs of some types of care have risen in Scotland and Wales, where these reforms do not apply.
	As we have discussed in previous debates on the Bill, child care costs are not the only pressure on family budgets. We can never forget the impact of the 2008 recession and its effect on incomes for every household.

Alex Cunningham: I welcome the fact that prices are coming down and that more places are available, but the vast majority of the new jobs to which the Exchequer Secretary has referred are low-paid, part-time, insecure and involve zero-hours contracts and similar, which do not make anybody’s life easier as they consider care for their children. Perhaps that is why we are seeing an overspend of many millions of pounds in the Government’s social security budget.

Priti Patel: I re-emphasise a point I have made consistently throughout the passage of the Bill: the Government’s overall system of child care remains focused on those who are on lower incomes. We are concentrating on supporting families getting into work and ensuring, as we have touched on in previous debates, not only that work pays, but that child care remains focused on those on lower incomes.
	Living standards—the cash in people’s pockets and what they can buy with it—are perhaps the biggest issue facing British families. The tough decisions we have taken as a Government have a very clear end in mind, which is to help create prosperity and boost living standards. Alongside that, we want to make sure that the Government have the right measures to support working families and households and to ensure that work pays.
	Since coming to power, this Government have taken decisive action to ease the pressure on households and families. We are providing free school meals for all infant school pupils in reception year and in years 1 and 2. We have increased the personal allowance to £10,000 and in April 2015 it will increase to £10,500. During the course of this Parliament, we have cut the income tax of the typical taxpayer by £805, taking more than 3.2 million individuals out of income tax by 2015-16 and boosting the money that 25 million people take home.
	Additional measures on living standards include freezing council tax in real terms and cutting the cost of driving by freezing fuel duty until the end of this Parliament, saving a typical motorist £680. We recently announced that the cost of driving licences will also be cut. Ultimately, however, as every family knows, the best way to raise living standards is by being in work, and we are pulling out all the stops to help those who want to work get into work by making work pay and introducing this Bill, which provides important financial measures to support child care.
	I thank all Members for the opportunity to debate all the issues associated with child poverty as the Bill has passed through the House. Child poverty is an extremely important issue and this Government are fully committed to the goal of ending child poverty in the UK by the end of 2020.

Margaret Ritchie: As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said on Report, the Northern Ireland Assembly has already debated the legislative consent motion, which will enable enactment of the legislation in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister accept that there are fewer opportunities to access child care in Northern Ireland and fewer job opportunities? Will she consider allowing the other place to debate the extension of the child care voucher scheme so that it can remain in place while the measures are being implemented and both the scheme and the Bill can run concurrently?

Priti Patel: I will come on to Northern Ireland in a moment, because I want to finish addressing child poverty. Our child poverty strategy 2014-17, which was published in June, outlines our plans to tackle the root causes of child poverty, including parents being out of work, low earnings and educational failure. That approach reflects the reality of child poverty today and, importantly, reflects our determination to achieve lasting change to protect the poorest in our society.
	The evidence is clear that work remains the best route out of poverty, and children are three times as likely to be in poverty if they live in a workless family. That is why we are taking decisive action to make work pay and reform the welfare system. We have touched on universal credit, the child care support we are providing and increasing the national minimum wage.
	This is a complex, multifaceted problem, and it would be wrong to suggest that there is a silver bullet. We have made good progress, but there is more to do in tackling child poverty. The Bill will support this Government’s efforts to tackle the root causes of one of our greatest social ills.
	I am grateful to all those who have participated in the debates on the Bill. I welcome the support from both sides of the House for this important new scheme, which marks such an improvement on the current support available to parents. I am particularly delighted that the Northern Ireland Assembly recently voted in favour of a legislative consent motion to enable the scheme to be available to families in Northern Ireland in the same way as it will be to families elsewhere in the UK. That was entirely a matter for the Assembly, which has given the scheme a positive vote of confidence.
	I understand that the Offices of the First Minister and of the deputy First Minister will consider the impact of the scheme and its interaction with other initiatives
	in the context of wider work on the development of their own child care strategy, so it would be inappropriate for me to make further comment on those devolved matters. Obviously, that is work in progress.
	During all stages of the Bill, we have consulted widely on the design of the scheme over the past year. We have listened to feedback from parents, employers, the child care industry and all stakeholders.
	Following those discussions, we are already making several changes. We are rolling the scheme out to families more quickly. Within a year of its introduction, all families will be able to apply for support, which is significantly faster than the previously announced timetable for the roll-out, of seven years. There is a more generous cap so that families can receive up to £2,000 of Government support per child. We are making the scheme available throughout periods of paid and unpaid parental leave, and we are making changes to the minimum income level to support those in self-employment. We are extending to 14 days the time during which parents can access the scheme before starting work. I have committed to looking at the cap with reference to the costs of caring for disabled children.
	The scheme will not only deliver valued support to hard-working families, but it will do so in a way that works for parents. It will be a smooth, simple and secure scheme. From the outset, it has been designed to have parents at its heart. Rather than requiring parents to report changes of circumstances in real time, the scheme will be based on quarterly entitlement periods. That will give parents the certainty that they will continue to be eligible for support for three months at a time, regardless of any unexpected changes in their circumstances. For parents to reconfirm for the next quarter will simply take a few clicks through the system that we are designing and setting up. Those are just some of the ways in which we have engaged with stakeholders and, importantly, learned lessons from the experience of tax credits. Our ambition is for the new scheme to represent a real step change in user experience.
	The scheme will be a vast improvement on the current employer-supported child care scheme, which provides support to a limited number of employees. As well as being available much more widely, it will be better targeted, make payments on a fairer basis—on the number of children, rather than the number of adults—and will be much more efficient. That is why we will close the current scheme to new entrants when the scheme is introduced, although those who already receive support under it can stay in it, if they so choose, for as long as they wish.
	As a result of the Bill, more working families than ever will be eligible for Government support with their child care costs. Our proposals have been welcomed by families and child care providers around the country. The Bill represents an important part of the Government’s strategy to get people into work, and I commend it to the House.

Catherine McKinnell: Any new investment in child care—particularly support for struggling families up and down the country who are battling to juggle their
	work and family lives—is clearly welcome. The Bill is therefore important, but it is long overdue for thousands of parents.
	Fundamentally, we remain concerned that the Bill will simply not address the situation in which too many parents have been left. The evidence is now overwhelming. The cumulative changes to tax and benefits over the Government’s time in office have hit families hardest, as is clearly shown by new research published today. From our analysis of official statistics, we know that some families in which both parents are in work will be £2,000 a year worse off on average by the next election as a direct result of the Government’s tax and benefits choices. Researchers from the London School of Economics and the university of Essex have released findings showing that the clear losers under the Government are lone-parent families, large families and children.
	This summer, the Prime Minister announced that all Government policies have to pass a families test. It is interesting that that is his aspiration only now, because it is abundantly clear that the Government have completely failed the families test to date. We share the widely expressed concern that the Bill will not go anything like far enough to make up the shortfall that families face, partly because of the tax and benefits changes, but also because of soaring child care costs.
	Aside from that central issue, we have several other concerns. We are worried that parents will be left exposed to inflated child care prices, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) clearly set out in her speech on new clause 2. The Government have only one chance to get the hugely important IT infrastructure right, but crucially there is huge concern that parents might face a nightmare of complexity and confusion if the Government fail to provide adequate support and information to help them to make informed choices and to navigate between the schemes for universal credit and for the top-up payments.
	Welcome though the support is, for far too many parents it will be far too little, far too late. I hope that the Minister has taken on board the concerns we raised throughout the proceedings in Committee and on Report, whether on some of the more technical aspects of the Bill’s operation or on the more fundamental issues.

Margaret Ritchie: My hon. Friend is making some compelling points. Is she aware of research by the Resolution Foundation that found that 80% of the families who will benefit from the top-up payments available through the tax-free child care scheme are in the top 40% of the income distribution scale, and that the remaining 20% will go to families in the middle of it? How will the scheme help those on low incomes, lone parents and those with large families?

Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend has herself made the point very powerfully. I was concerned when the Minister spoke at length about child poverty because the Bill will do very little to deal with such issues, and we know that such figures will only increase. Levels of child poverty have increased significantly under this Government, as the facts and evidence prove.
	Although we should focus on what the Bill will achieve—it will provide support in meeting demand for some payments for child care—my hon. Friend clearly sets out which parents will benefit most from the support.
	However, even those parents are concerned that the scheme might unduly complicate their lives. It might be burdensome for parents to navigate it, particularly those at the lower end of the income scale who have to navigate between a reduction in universal credit support and a movement into the top-up payments scheme, where potentially disastrous child care support pitfalls await them. We discussed that at length in Committee and we have put our concerns on the record. Other Opposition Members and I very much hope that the Minister has taken all such concerns on board and can deliver on the reassurances that she has given.
	Let me take this last opportunity to urge the Government to recognise the value to parents not only of this support with child care costs, but of the extension of the free entitlement to three and four-year-olds. Quite simply, that would ensure that working parents are better off. It would help more parents to get back into work or to work more hours, and it would help to bring home more pay for the hours they work. We know that so many parents are desperate for such support. It would be simple and effective, and it would not place any more burdens on parents than those they already face. It would not add any more complexity to a child care market that is already hugely complicated.
	Parents have struggled for four years under this Government with a child care crunch of rising prices alongside stagnant wages. Although we will support the Bill tonight, I urge the Minister to ensure that she, her officials and her partners who deliver the scheme fulfil the promises that have been made during its passage in Committee so that parents can receive this much needed support.
	I look forward to the arrival, in 2015, of a Labour Government who will ensure that parents receive not only the support provided in the Bill, but an additional 10 hours of free child care for three and four-year-olds. That will deal with many of the supply-side and price inflation concerns, and it will also provide child care support for the parents who will not benefit at all from the scheme.

Maria Miller: It has been a privilege to have served on the Bill Committee, and I pay tribute to the two hon. Ladies who have led the debate. My hon. Friend the Minister has navigated us through the Bill with incredible style. She has listened to the arguments, acted on what she has heard and understood the importance of flexibility for parents in this scheme.
	The Minister also listened closely to the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and his powerful
	arguments, both today and in Committee, about the particular needs of disabled children. None of us could have anything but admiration for the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who obviously has her own interest in child care issues. She has led from the Opposition Benches incredibly well.
	My hon. Friend the Minister is right to say that child care costs should not be a barrier to work for parents, and the Bill goes further than ever before to help achieve what we all want—for parents to have the opportunity to go back to work after they have had children, or to continue in employment when they have children of a young age. I am glad that the Opposition will support this important Bill tonight, because child care costs are not a problem only for those on very low wages; they are a problem for almost all the parents I have talked to, and it is right for the Government to consider how to address it.
	Under this Government, more women are in work than ever before and, interestingly, the cost of child care for parents is falling—perhaps those two issues are not entirely separate. The Government have set the standard when it comes to enhancements for child care, not only by taking on what the Labour Government put in place, but frankly by going a great deal further: free entitlement to 15 hours a week of early years care for four and five-year-olds and 40% of two-year-olds; new support under universal credit; and tax-free child care, which will mean that for the first time ever, people who are self-employed can get access to important child care help and support when running their own businesses.
	I disagree with comments made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North about the Prime Minister and the families test, because I think the Bill passes that test with flying colours. It shows that we have been listening to parents and families, and that the Government have acted.
	Parents want choice on child care—the Minister knows that, as do the Government. We all want child care that will fit around our children’s lives and needs and our family life. I believe that the Bill takes us one step further towards giving freedom to parents to choose the child care they want and need for their children. That will provide an enduring framework for changes to child care in the future. I hope the Minister will come back to the Dispatch Box when the Bill becomes an Act, and say how we can use it as a framework to provide further support in the future. I am sure she will.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Lindsay Hoyle: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 2 to 7 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6),

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft Shared Parental Leave and Paternity and Adoption Leave (Adoptions from Overseas) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.
	That the draft Paternity, Adoption and Shared Parental Leave (Parental Order Cases) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.
	That the draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Sections 75G and 75H to Adoptions from Overseas) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.
	That the draft Statutory Shared Parental Pay (Parental Order Cases) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.
	That the draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Sections 75A, 75B, 75G, 75H, 80A and 80B to Parental Order Cases) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.
	That the draft Statutory Shared Parental Pay (Adoption from Overseas) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)
	Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That at the sitting on Wednesday 19 November paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the Motion in the name of Edward Miliband as if the day were an Opposition Day; proceedings on the Motion may continue, though opposed, for three hours and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

CHRISTINA EDKINS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

James Morris: The murder of Christina Edkins on 7 March 2013 in a random knife attack on the No. 9 bus, while travelling from Birmingham to school in my constituency, was a devastating blow to her family, friends and the community where she lived in Birmingham, and where she went to school in Halesowen. Nobody could imagine the depth of pain and anguish that the Edkins family have had to suffer, and I will read an extract from their victim impact statement:
	“The school have been wonderful and so have all of Christina’s friends, who have also been affected by her death. They wanted us to come to the Prom for Christina, but we couldn’t do it, it would have been too difficult…Some months after her death, we had a parcel delivered—it was Christina’s exam results, she had done really well. Also enclosed was the school year book, where Christina was included, and at the back they had done a tribute page to her. There was a poem and lots of photographs of her and a quote by her headmaster ‘if a school could choose its pupils, it would be full of Christinas’…Our family are so devastated I don’t know how we will get over what has happened. We are a big family and no one has been left untouched. Christina loved her family and her cousins—they all called her CJ. Our lives have been changed beyond all belief by that knock on the door on 7 March 2013. Our lives will never be the same and I don’t know what we will do without our precious daughter Christina.”
	At first, the focus following this act was on the use of a knife in the attack by Phillip Simelane. Immediately after the incident I called on the Prime Minister in Prime Minister’s questions to tighten knife laws, and I supported an amendment to the Criminal Courts and Justice Bill, which has significantly strengthened our knife laws.
	It became clear when matters were brought to court that Phillip Simelane was unable to make a plea because he was considered too mentally ill to do so. In September 2013 he appeared in court, and in October 2013 he was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and detained in a psychiatric hospital. During court proceedings, the judge at Birmingham Crown court raised a number of issues and questions about the mental health of Simelane. Why had he not been admitted to a psychiatric hospital? Why had he been discharged from HMP Birmingham without any follow up? Why did the services he was involved with prior to being admitted to HMP Hewell not deem him to require treatment.
	As a result of questions raised by the trial judge, Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust initiated a serious incident review. Culminating in the report chaired by Dr Alison Reed, the review revealed more than a decade of contact by services with Phillip Simelane, including Birmingham and Solihull mental health trust, the Black Country Partnership mental health trust, Sandwell social services, Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust, Phillip Simelane’s GP, the West Midlands police, Sandwell Women’s Aid, HMP Hewell in Birmingham, the Crown Prosecution Service, and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. The report revealed a litany of service and system failures that led it to conclude:
	“The homicide of Christina by P was directly related to his mental illness and could have been prevented if his mental health needs had been identified and met.”
	The report revealed a lack of co-ordination between services over a long period, from the time that problems with Simelane were raised in school, through to his discharge from HMP Birmingham almost a decade later. It identified the complete breakdown of communication between different services that came into contact with Simelane over a 10-year period. It identified the unrealistic responsibility that was placed on Simelane and his mother—to whom he had made several violent threats and actions—to initiate and engage with health care services, including his GP, child and adolescent mental health services, and the Prison Service, when it became increasingly clear that Simelane was not in a position to judge his own mental health needs.
	Paragraph 64 of the report illustrates one of the issues. On 26 March 2009, Phillip Simelane’s GP called his mother on the telephone. The report says:
	“There was a further discussion about whether P was involved with drugs, but she had not discovered any illicit substances. It was reported to the GP that P had admitted to using alcohol/cannabis in the past. The GP recorded that the plan was to refer P to the BCPFT Community Mental Health Team and ask them to assess P soon. The BCPFT Oldbury & Smethwick Community Mental Health Team sent an ‘opt in’ letter to P on 1 April 2009 asking him to contact them to make a ‘mutually convenient appointment’ within the next 14 days. The letter also stated, ‘If we do not hear from you within two weeks, we will assume you do not need our service’. On the 20th April 2009 the team wrote back to the GP saying they had not had any response from P and were therefore discharging him back to the GP’s care. The case was closed. P did not receive any written confirmation that his case had been closed. On interview, the GP stated that if a GP expressed concerns to a mental health specialist about a patient, then at the very least the patient should be seen.”
	My intention is to raise the serious problems with the idea that people should “opt in” to mental health care.
	The next issue is the repeated failures of professionals across the agencies to determine Simelane’s future risk to himself, his family and the public, with often contradictory assessments of his mental health state over a 10-year period. Another issue is the lack of basic information sharing between agencies and within the prison and courts system, leading to bad or confused decision making about the care—or lack of care—of Phillip Simelane. As an example, attempts were made in 2012, some six months before the incident took place, by the Black Country mental health trust crisis team to raise their concerns about Phillip Simelane with HMP Hewell, but these were not followed up.
	One of the most devastating indictments in the report is that in October 2012 Simelane was released from HMP Hewell on licence, with no notification to his GP of prescribed medication and no mental health follow-up. He was also discharged with only three days of anti-psychotic medication. After he had reoffended while on licence, he was released from HMP Birmingham having been rendered homeless. An injunction was at his mother’s address. Again, there was no notification to his GP from the Prison Service and no mental health follow-up.
	The failures identified in the report have a depressing familiarity. The truth is that they are failings that have been identified many times in previous reviews. We now have a duty to the memory of Christina Edkins and the anguish suffered by her family to act, and to do everything that we can to stop a repeat of this tragedy.
	I ask the Minister to take specific actions to address the concerns and failings highlighted in the report. First, we need to address the consistent failure of all
	agencies involved to share crucial information about Phillip Simelane. How do we ensure that we implement a radical culture change so that there is a presumption that relevant information will be shared across agencies? Will the Minister consider a potential role for the Care Quality Commission, as part of its inspection responsibilities, to ensure that that happens? How do we move to a more systematic and standardised assessment of risk that properly pulls together different perspectives and evaluations of individuals such as Phillip Simelane?
	The interaction of Simelane with the child and adolescent mental health services reveals some well known limitations of, and issues with, those services. How do we approach the treatment of people who, at one stage in their life, are deemed to be below threshold? How do we overcome poor communication and lack of information sharing between GPs, schools, services and the voluntary sector? Will the Minister commit to a review of CAMHS, building on the recent Health Committee report on their functioning to take into account the particular examples in the report on Simelane?
	The report reveals significant failings in HMP Hewell and HMP Birmingham while Simelane was in prison. Again, there was a lack of information sharing, of care plans, of co-ordination and of communication, including—incredibly—no notification of Simelane’s release from prison to his GP. Can the Minister commit to working with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to address the issue of mental health in prisons and to ensure that appropriate care plans are in place on release? Will the Minister also reflect on the status of this report? It was commissioned by the Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust and co-ordinated by the cross-Birmingham clinical commissioning group. It was commissioned locally but has wide national applicability. How can we ensure that the lessons of this report and its recommendations are implemented nationally?
	The family of Christina Edkins has written to NHS England to raise concerns and to ask whether a further independent inquiry is needed. Will the Minister commit tonight to discuss immediately with NHS England its views on the need for a further independent inquiry as a matter of urgency? In the end, nothing will diminish the pain and anguish suffered by the family of Christina Edkins, but those in positions of public responsibility should now do everything they can to ensure that the tragic circumstances of this case are not repeated.

Norman Lamb: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) on securing this debate on this incredibly important and difficult issue. He asked some specific questions. First, he talked about the failure of organisations to share information, and I will develop my thoughts on that in due course. He made a particular point about the role of the Care Quality Commission. Under the new inspection regime, the CQC will undertake much more detailed inspections of providers than has been the case in the past, and it will be able to take into account issues such as the importance of sharing information to ensure good care. I will make sure it receives the Hansard report of this debate, so it can take on board the specific points he makes.
	My hon. Friend talked about the importance of a more systematic and standardised assessment of risk. That is one of the points the Government need to respond to in terms of the report. At the end of his speech he asked about the status of the report. It is clear that the report raises issues of both local and national significance. It is incredibly important that the Government recognise that and seek to address and respond to the concerns identified. I am happy to write to him to pursue that further, but I am intent on ensuring that we respond as soon as possible where it is clear that there are national lessons to be learned. This tragic case raises issues that have been raised before—they are not new. It is imperative for all of us to seek to address the issues identified in the report.
	My hon. Friend raised a concern about individuals who do not hit the threshold for admission to secondary care. He also asked whether I would be prepared to review child and adolescent mental health services. I am pleased to say that in the summer I announced a taskforce to review the way in which CAMHS operate. I do not think that the way we commission or organise CAMHS is fit for purpose. There is a need for a fundamental review of how the services are organised and commissioned. The findings of the report can absolutely feed into that taskforce.
	I would just like to dwell on some of the issues we need to look at in the taskforce process. At the moment, four organisations are involved in the commissioning of services for children and young people: local authorities, schools, clinical commissioning groups and NHS England. The fragmented arrangement for commissioning care does not lead to the best chance of joined-up services and that fundamentally needs to change. We recognise that it is very clear that only a minority of youngsters who have mental health problems receive access to any service at all. That has been the case for a very long time, but it does not make it right.
	It is clear that many interventions deployed with youngsters have a very strong evidence base. For example, early intervention in psychosis—after the first episode of psychosis—can stop deterioration occurring. However, around the country the position is variable. In some areas there is access to good services, but in other areas there is either no service at all or people have to wait a very long time. I am therefore very pleased that the Prime Minister announced in October the introduction, for the first time, of an access waiting time standard of two weeks for early intervention in psychosis. We start with 50% of everyone who experiences an episode of psychosis. In future years, the aim would be to raise that percentage so that as many people as possible have access to support as fast as possible, and access to a service that is evidence-based, NICE-based and approved.
	That is a breakthrough and a watershed moment for mental health services, but another area that the CAMHS taskforce wants to look at is how to improve access more generally. In Australia there is something called Headspace, which involves non-stigmatised access to services often provided by third sector consortia. There are local Headspace centres around the country, and a telephone service and an online service. That means that far more youngsters can receive access to some support at a much earlier stage than is the case in this country—and was the case in Australia before it introduced
	Headspace. We can learn lessons from the way services are commissioned and provided, and there is a lot we can do to improve access to support in those earlier years.
	Moving on from the specific points my hon. Friend raised, I should put on the record my horror at Christina’s murder. I share his sentiments and wish to extend my personal sympathies to the family. What they must have been through is unimaginable, and my heart goes out to them. Christina Edkins was a happy, well-loved teenager with a bright future ahead of her. She was doing well academically, she played netball for the school team and enjoyed writing. She had ambitions to become a midwife and was already working with young children in a nursery school. Her death was tragic. We should all be able to go about our daily lives without fear of violence.
	As Dr Reed’s report says, the attack was random and unprovoked. The question is whether it was preventable. As my hon. Friend made clear, Phillip Simelane’s mother tried for many years to get him the help she knew he needed. The system has let down that family as well as the victim’s family, and one’s heart goes out to his mother for what she must have gone through, having tried so hard to get help over many years. She herself suffered a number of attacks by Phillip, and she knew that his mental state was deteriorating and tried to get help. We cannot say what would have happened had she been successful, but it could hardly have been worse than what took place in March 2013. I am sure I speak for everyone here when I say that my heartfelt sympathies go out to the families of both Christina Edkins and Phillip Simelane.
	Nothing we can do can return Christina to her family, but as my hon. Friend said, we can ensure that lessons are learned and that appropriate action is taken to prevent, as far as is humanly possible, any similar event from happening again. This afternoon, I met Dr Reed, who wrote the homicide report into Christina’s death, and discussed with her at length both her report and the importance of responding to the recommendations raised in it. Lessons can be learned from this tragic incident, both locally and nationally, and we are considering the national recommendations in the report. As well as explaining some of the actions today, I would be happy to write to my hon. Friend setting out in more detail what action the Government are taking to address the recommendations. I want us to be clear about the time scale for responding more fully and about what actions might follow a formal written response.
	Before I turn to the specifics of the report, I would first like to touch on the importance of parity of esteem for mental health, which has long been a personal priority of mine and of my hon. Friend. The Government are clear that mental health care is as important as physical health care. It is unacceptable that in this time of modern medicine three out of four people with common mental health problems receive no treatment. If three out of four people with diabetes, for example, received no treatment, we would all be completely outraged. Mental health problems can have a huge impact on the quality of life of individuals and their families and friends and should be taken as seriously as physical health problems. I think that this simple principle of equality is starting to be accepted, but there remains a
	big and frustrating time lag when it comes to translating it into practice in terms of the responsiveness of services on the ground.
	It is clear from the homicide investigation report that Phillip Simelane did not receive the treatment he needed for his mental health conditions. His mother repeatedly attempted to get appropriate treatment for her son from the time he was 14.
	The report found that there were multiple opportunities for Mr Simelane to be given access to mental health interventions or treatment, but many opportunities were missed. In some cases, Mr Simelane did not meet the provider’s criteria for specific services—a point made by my hon. Friend—such as admission to a psychiatric intensive care unit. In others, he was not able or willing to engage with services. During this time, his behaviour deteriorated and his mother became increasingly concerned and at risk. One can only begin to imagine how hard it must have been for her to see the deterioration happening before her eyes, to be at risk herself yet to have no proper response from the authorities, who ought to have been safeguarding her and ensuring that others were safeguarded from the actions of someone whose condition was deteriorating.
	In total, Mr Simelane was reviewed or formally assessed for mental health conditions 17 times by four different organisations between April 2009 and December 2012. Quite a lot of effort and time was put into assessing him, but there was precious little action or support. None of this resulted in him getting the help he actually needed.
	The 2014-15 mandate to the NHS sets out an explicit target for NHS England to make measurable progress to ensure that
	“everyone who needs it has timely access to evidence-based services”,
	whether it be for mental health or physical health. We have identified £40 million of additional spending to kick-start change in mental health services in the current year, and a further £80 million for 2015-16. As I said, this will for the first time enable the setting of access and waiting time standards in mental health services. This will include 75% of people referred to the improving access to psychological therapies programme being treated within six weeks of referral, and 95% being treated within 18 weeks of referral as a backstop. At last, people with a mental health condition—depression, anxiety or a condition such as obsessive-compulsive disorder—will have an entitlement, just like those with a physical health problem, to access treatment on a timely basis. Furthermore, at least 50% of patients experiencing a first episode of psychosis will be treated with a NICE-approved care package within two weeks of referral, while £30 million-worth of targeted investment from within the total £80 million envelope will be spent on effective models of liaison psychiatry in more acute hospitals.
	Crisis care is one area where the gap between the experience of those with physical and mental health problems is at its greatest. If someone suffers a physical health crisis, they will know what will happen—an ambulance will arrive and they will be taken to A and E. The system may be under pressure, but access will be granted to a specialist who can help with the particular condition. If someone suffers a mental health crisis,
	however, God knows what will happen. They may have a good service, but too often it falls short. Too often still, people end up in police cells when they are in the middle of a mental health crisis.

James Morris: One crucial aspect of this particular report is the interaction between crisis care services and the Prison Service. One of the big gaps revealed by the report relates to what happens when someone is released from prison with known mental health problems. In this case, nothing happened and the individual was lost to services. Will the Minister reflect a little on how we might be able to join the Prison Service and health services more closely?

Norman Lamb: I completely agree with my hon. Friend on that point. The first incredibly positive thing to say is that we have embarked on the national roll-out of a liaison and diversion service, the purpose of which is to ensure that when a person first appears in the criminal justice system—whether at a court or a police station—someone will be able to assess their mental health. If they have an identifiable mental health problem, they will be referred straight away for treatment and support. They may still go through the criminal justice system and may still end up in prison, but their condition will have been identified and they will have been referred for the treatment that may help them to address their offending behaviour.
	So far we have spent £25 million in the current financial year. We have covered about 25% of the country, and next year we will cover more than 50%. Our aim is a national roll-out by 2017, subject to the making of a business case to the Treasury, and that in itself will make a dramatic difference. No other country in the world is pursuing this on such an industrial scale. Moreover, what we are doing is evidence-based, and as we build on the programme, we will develop the evidence and ensure that we apply it. There is also the issue of what happens to someone who is in the system and what happens when the person leaves prison, and I shall deal with that in a moment.
	The Department has funded nine street triage pilots this year, in which police and mental health professionals have worked together to support people who are experiencing mental health crises. Perhaps most relevant to cases such as that of Mr Simelane is the £25 million to which I referred earlier, which constitutes the first stage of the roll-out of a national liaison and diversion service.
	Before my hon. Friend intervened, I was talking about the unacceptable practice of allowing people who are in the middle of mental health crises to end up in police cells. It is good news that between the 2012-13 and 2013-14 financial years there was a 24% reduction in the use of police cells, and evidence suggests that that trend is continuing in the current year. Earlier this year we published the mental health crisis careconcordat, in which more than 20 national organisations committed themselves to standards of care in mental health crisis for the first time. Our objectives were a 50% reduction in the use of police cells in the current financial year compared with two years ago, and a complete ending of the use of police cells for children. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims and I are currently writing to local authorities asking
	them to take seriously their responsibility to end that unacceptable practice. I think everyone would agree that the practice of allowing a child under the age of 18 to end up behind bars in a police station must be brought to an end.
	A key finding of the homicide report was that information sharing within and between organisations involved in Mr Simelane’s case was not effective. The sharing of information between organisations that are responsible for the care of vulnerable people has many benefits, and all organisations of that kind should strive to communicate and share information effectively. Indeed, I believe that they have a duty to do so. At the heart of most of the scandals over the years when something dreadful has happened has been a failure to share information effectively, and that certainly includes the case of Mr Simelane.
	I realise that, in practice, such information sharing is difficult to achieve, but it must be an absolute priority, and the organisations involved must actively seek solutions. We recently issued a simple one-page guide for practitioners working in the health system, which emphasised the importance of sharing information. We are right to focus on the importance of confidentiality, but, in doing so, we sometimes forget that need to share information to ensure that good care is provided.
	Electronic patient records are becoming more prevalent and are making information sharing easier, but they are not foolproof, and there are still security and confidentiality issues that limit the sharing of some information. For the time being, such systems should be seen as adding an additional layer of patient safety, and it is important for all clinicians receiving a referred patient to satisfy themselves that they have a thorough understanding of the patient’s history. Clinicians also have the ability to request additional information from other clinicians or relevant professionals if they feel that such information would be beneficial in making an accurate assessment of the patient.
	The Ministry of Justice is responsible for the management of offenders in the community. Care and supervision may be delivered by a number of agencies working together to share information, including health, social care, probation and other authorities. This enables appropriate action to be taken if an offender’s behaviour escalates to present a risk to the public, and that may include intervention by professionals or even recall to prison or to another appropriate facility.
	We come back to the need for appropriate sharing of information among organisations. As I have said, this can in practice be complex and difficult to implement. However, organisations with a responsibility to care for vulnerable people and to protect the public must be able to work effectively together. Dr Reed’s report was only published in September and there will be no quick fixes for the organisations involved in this case. We expect NHS England to work with all the NHS providers involved to ensure that they address the recommendations in the report. This will require NHS providers to work with non-NHS organisations, including the Prison Service, to ensure that the lessons that need to be learned from this report are implemented across the board.
	The issues identified in the report as essentially local will probably be common to many other organisations around the country, and we owe it to the families who
	have been devastated by this tragedy to ensure that those local lessons with wider applications and the issues identified as of national importance are all properly addressed, and I am happy to work with my hon. Friend to try to achieve that.

James Morris: On the specific point about the status of this report, I know that the Edkins family have written to NHS England expressing concerns about some of the findings in the report and asking whether there needs to be a further independent review. I think NHS England has promised to get back to them. Could the Minister use his good offices to communicate with NHS England to get back to the family?

Norman Lamb: I absolutely will communicate with NHS England and seek to ensure that the family get a response to that request.
	As I said earlier, I shall write to my hon. Friend on all the issues that emanate from the report, and in doing so I will summarise the work being undertaken by the Government in response to this report. Work on this has already begun. The health care providers at HMP Hewell and HMP Birmingham have developed action plans in response to the recommendations in the report. NHS England’s Shropshire and Staffordshire area team is monitoring progress closely to make sure that all recommendations are met. The report also contained national recommendations for NHS England, and the Department of Health and the Ministry of Justice will work with partner organisation to address these recommendations.
	Black Country Partnership NHS Foundation Trust has already implemented some changes in response to Christina’s death. It has phased out the use of “opt-in” letters, which my hon. Friend specifically referred to. Their use was an extraordinary practice when one thinks about it, given the nature of the condition that individuals such as Mr Simelane suffer from. Opt-in letters were previously used to invite patients to make an appointment, but they allowed someone to be discharged from secondary care if they did not respond. This practice has to end. The trust now proactively assesses all patients referred to it. That issue has wide application across the country.
	The trust is working to improve the way its services join up with others, particularly those provided by external agencies, in the care of someone with severe mental illness. The trust will shortly be introducing electronic patient records which will enable teams across different parts of the service to access relevant patient information more quickly.
	Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust has also implemented changes, including putting in place a robust escalation process for all cases in which disputes or concerns are raised about the outcome of a prison assessment, and ensuring that a full check is made on the HMP healthcare patient information recording system to identify any previous significant physical and/or mental health history.
	The trust also has work under way. This includes changing psychiatric intensive care unit induction and training for doctors and nurses to include training on how to undertake prison assessments; introducing a review of all new prisoners by a nurse specialist within 24 hours when mental health concerns have been raised and, if recommended, by a psychiatrist within a maximum of five working days; and including in health screening
	on discharge cross-checking and reference between the health and prison records systems. The trust aims to have these and other changes in place by March 2015.
	The investigation makes national recommendations, including the implementation of new supervision requirements for offenders who have served sentences of under 12 months, as was the case for Mr Simelane at the time of the incident. As part of the Transforming Rehabilitation programme, the National Offender Management Service is working with the NHS on through-the-prison-gate support for offenders serving sentences of under 12 months, including those offenders who are known to have mental health problems.
	The Ministry of Justice is putting in place an unprecedented nationwide resettlement service, which will mean that most offenders are given continuous support by one provider from custody into the community. The Ministry will ensure that most offenders are held in a prison designated to their area for at least three months before release. This will mean better continuity of supervision and rehabilitation services, as well as better family links for those offenders and a network of prisons more specifically catering for the needs of short-term
	offenders. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, continuity of care and support when an individual leaves prison is of fundamental importance.
	None of the changes made in response to Dr Reed’s report can bring Christina Edkins back, but we can all do our very best to ensure that no other family suffers in the way that Christina’s has done. None of the recommendations in the report is unachievable. They will require hard work on the part of many organisations, but the result will be better care, supervision and support for some of our society’s most vulnerable people.
	I close by once again offering my heartfelt condolences to Christina’s family and assuring them that we will ensure that everything that can be done to prevent similar tragic events in future will be done. I shall be happy to work with my hon. Friend and to continue a dialogue with him to ensure that we maintain momentum in addressing the recommendations in the report and the concerns of the family.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.